Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock.

THE CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barnsley Corporation (Water) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

East Anglian Electricity Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFORMATORY SENTENCE (EDWARD HATTON).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the case of Edward Hatton, of Wakefield, who, at the age of 10 years, was sentenced to six years in a reformatory; and, in view of the fact that his mother has suffered the loss of her husband and within six months of his death also buried five of her other children, will he consider the whole circumstances of this sentence with a view to recommending the release of this boy?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have made the fullest inquiries in this case, of which a very misleading account has appeared in a newspaper, and I have taken into consideration the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. Two years ago this boy, who is now 12 years of age, was brought before the Juvenile Court at Wakefield, with five other boys, for theft. Hatton had given considerable trouble before, and in 1922 he was concerned in a case of extensive damage to a house and was placed on probation for three years. During the period of probation he was reported several times for stealing. As it appeared to the Magistrates, from the inquiries which they made, that the boy was completely out of hand and that his mother took no steps to control him, they decided to send him to a certified school, which is under the management of the Leeds Education Authority. I am informed that during the two years that he has been there the boy, who was very backward and delicate on admission, has made progress, but he still needs further training. His physical improvement is so marked that he can now hold his own in games with boys of his age. I am satisfied that the steps taken for the education and care of this boy are right, and I am not prepared to take any action in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIX-WHEEL OMNIBUSES.

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether any of the new omnibuses, known as the six-wheel type, have been finally approved by Scotland Yard; if so, how many have been licensed; and on which date will they be released?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioner tells me that no omnibus of the six-wheel type has yet been finally approved, but applications are under consideration.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what routes they will run on?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot possibly say that because they have not yet been approved.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

ANTON MILLER.

Mr. LANSBURY: 5.
asked the Home Secretary on what date the police authorities discovered that Anton Miller was one of the leaders of the Russian spy organisation, in the very closest touch with the actual leader of it; and will he explain to the House for what period of time after the discovery this leader of Russian spies was allowed to remain in this country without interference from the police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot usefully add anything to the answer given on the 30th May.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why this alleged spy was not arrested and proceeded against?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that in the history of our country it has not always been found desirable either to arrest spies or proceed against them at any particular moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that this man has been in the country for six years, and is not the House entitled to know when it was discovered that he was so dangerous a person and the centre of conspiracy of the spy operations in this country; and seeing that this man was registered as an alien and was here with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, when he informed the House that he had discovered a human document was it not a document that he knew thoroughly well was here and had been here for many years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I knew that this man had been here, but I did not know that I should find this particular man, of whose activities I was aware, acting as a cipher clerk in Arcos.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the Home Secretary was aware, as he has stated he was aware, that this man was at the centre of the then spy conspiracy in this country, why was he permitted to remain here for six years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not prepared to say why spies are permitted to remain in this country. I take the
responsibility. I knew they were here. It is sometimes exceedingly useful that spies who are known to be in this country should be allowed to remain here so that we may be able to get information during the time they are here with regard to other people.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will allow the hon. Member one more supplementary question. Obviously this is a matter for debate.

Mr. LANSBURY: Obviously it is better to raise it now while it is fresh in the public mind. What I want to ask the Home Secretary is why the chief of the spy organisation, as the right hon. Gentleman described this man, was allowed to remain in this country for six years?

An HON. MEMBER: "He has answered that."

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered it.

Mr. BECKETT: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already said I cannot allow any more questions an this subject.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. May I point out that there was practically no chance of putting supplementary questions.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) put three.

P. P. DIAKONOFF.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 8.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now able to state the result of any inquiries into the allegations made to him regarding the visit to this country of a Russian named Diakonoff; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made such inquiries about, this matter as are practicable, and I find that General Diakonoff was formerly Assistant Military Attaché to the Imperial Russian Embassy. He is now resident in Paris, and the recent application for a visit to the United Kingdom was on the ground that he is the representative of a Rumanian firm dealing in wines and other produce. A request was received
from a firm of London merchants that he might be admitted for the purpose of business negotiations. On this ground permission was given for a short visit. He landed on 26th March and left on 1st April. I do not know on what information the hon. Member bases the allegations he made on 19th May, but I have no reason to believe that this visit was utilised for purposes contrary to the interests of this country.

Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the firm that made the application, and in connection with that firm are there any persons who, during this Russian's visit to this country, were in communication with the War Office regarding the real object of his visit?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I obviously cannot answer that without notice. That was not one of the points included in the hon. Member's statement on 19th May, but I will take a note of it and make inquiries and let the hon. Member know, or he can put a question down after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Mr. HARRIS: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the constitution of the Board of Education at the present time; and how many times has the Board met during the lifetime of the present Government?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The Board consists of a President, the Lord President of the Council (unless he is appointed President of the Board), His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Board has not met during the period referred to, nor have I any record of a meeting of the Board.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not the Noble Lord think the time has arrived when the Board that is responsible for the administration of education should be done away with and that he should assume personal responsibility and get the status of Minister of Education? Would it not be more suitable?

Lord E. PERCY: That is a matter of opinion, but I do not think the hon. Member need be very much alarmed at the antiquated forms under which some of our business is carried on.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Does it matter what he is called as long as he does his job?

Mr. HARRIS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the constitution of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education; when were the present members appointed; how many subjects have been referred to the Consultative Committee since it was first constituted; is there at present any reference to the Sub-Committee and, if so, what are its terms; whether the Consultative Committee has the power to initiate inquiries or to make representations to the Board on educational matters; and whether the Board has ever received representations from the Consultative Committee apart from matters referred by the Board to the Committee?

Lord E. PERCY: The Committee consists of 21 members, of whom not less than two-thirds must be persons qualified to represent the views of universities and other bodies interested in education. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the present members with the dates of their appointments. Fourteen subjects have been referred to the Committee since its establishment. I do not know to what Sub-Committee the hon. Member refers in the fourth part of the question, but I am also circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the present terms of reference to the Committee. As regards the last two parts of the question, the Committee is established by statute for the purpose of advising the Board of Education on any matter referred to it by the Board, but it is open to the Committee to make suggestions both as to the subjects of major importance to be referred to them, and also as to subjects of minor but more immediate importance which might form the subject of discussion between them and myself and officers of the Board. Advantage has been taken and will, I hope, increasingly be taken. of the opportunities thus afforded of securing close contact between the Committee and the Board.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the Consultative Committee meet at regular intervals at its own discretion or is it summoned by the President?

Lord E. PERCY: They arrange their own meetings.

Following is the information:

The following are the present members with their dates of appointment:

Members and Date of Appointment.

Sir W. H. Hadow, C.B.E., D.Mus. (Chairman).—15th July, 1922.

Sir Graham Balfour, LL.D.—21st October, 1926.

Principal Ernest Barker, LL.D., D.Litt.—15th July, 1922.

Mr. W. A. Brockington, O.B.E.—16th July, 1926.

Miss E. R. Conway, C.B.E.—16th July, 1926.

Mr. H. W. Cousins, M.Sc.—8th December, 1922.

Rev. D. H. S. Cranage, D.Litt., F.S.A.—15th July, 1922.

Mr. Evan T. Davis.—16th July, 1926.

Miss Lynda Grier.—16th July, 1926.

Miss Freda Hawtrey.—16th July, 1926.

Alderman Sir Percy Jackson, LL.D., J.P.—15th July, 1922.

Mr. F. B. Malim.—16th July, 1926.

Mr. A. Mansbridge, D.Litt., LL.D—15th July, 1924.

Mr. A. J. Mundella.—15th July, 1922.

Miss E. M. Tanner.—15th July, 1924.

Mr. R. H. Tawney.—15th July, 1924.

Alderman S. Taylor, J.P.—15th July,1924.

Mr. T. M. Taylor, C.B.E.—11th October, 1926.

Mr. H. Ward, C.B.E.—16th July, 1926.

Alderman W. C. Watkins, J.P.—15th July, 1924.

Mr. J. A. White, M.B.E.—15th July, 1924.

With Mr. R. F. Young (Board of Education) as Secretary.

Terms of Reference.

(i) To inquire as to the selection and provision of books for public elementary schools and to make recommendations for the improvement of their quality and supply.

(ii) To inquire and report as to the courses of study suitable for children (other than children in infants' departments) up to the age of 11 in elementary schools, with special reference to the needs of children in rural areas.

TEACHING PROFESSION (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. HARRIS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a circular letter signed on behalf of the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters, National Union of Teachers, Association of Assistant Mistresses (incorporated), Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, and Association of Headmistresses (incorporated), inviting members of the respective associations to warn entrants to the teaching profession of the possible dangers of unemployment with which they may be faced on completing their qualification; and whether, having regard to all the facts and circumstances connected with the recruitment of elementary and secondary school teachers, the expense to the State, to local education authorities and to parents, and the lack of financial resources on the part of many students leaving the training colleges, the Board are prepared to investigate the problem of preventing distress and wastage among qualified candidates for the teaching profession?

Lord E. PERCY: I have seen the circular letter referred to, but as it appears to be based upon inaccurate information, the hon. Member will not, I hope, expect me to accept the suggestion which it makes that serious unemployment is to be anticipated among teachers leaving training colleges. Since the letter has given rise to certain misapprehensions in the Press as to the effect of the Board's policy in the matter of staffing, perhaps I may point out that, on 31st March last, there were 530 more teachers in employment than a year previously, that the number of certificated teachers had increased by 996, while the number of supplementary teachers had decreased by 561, and that the approved establishments provide for a further substantial increase in the number of teachers to be employed in the current year.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: How many qualified teachers on leaving the training establishments are unemployed?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer I gave about a month ago, he will find very full particulars on the subject. Roughly speaking, last year 89 per cent. of those who left training colleges last July obtained immediate employment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the increase in the number of teachers due to the increased number of children at school or for the purpose of reducing the size of the classes?

Lord E. PERCY: The general tendency, of course, is for the number of children, at school to increase. I could not without notice say that on 31st March after the number had actually fallen or remained about stationary.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the Noble Lord consider whether he can make representations to the training colleges that there should be more co-ordination between them and the local education authorities so that the gap between leaving college and entering the service of an authority should be reduced?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member may remember that the Report of the Departmental Committee recommended that the Board should establish arrangements for consultation so that training colleges might receive guidance.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that the Noble Lord has put pressure on a number of local authorities to increase the size of their classes and dismiss teachers?

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that in particular instances the Noble Lord has pressed local authorities to increase the size of classes?

GAS CYLINDERS.

Colonel DAY: 18.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case in which an anæsthetist in a London hospital gave a patient at an operation gas from the wrong cylinder which caused the death of the patient from asphyxia; and, in view of the similarity of cylinders containing different gases used at operations, will he consider the introduction of legislation compelling the makers of
these gas cylinders to have them marked more distinctively, and with a fitting of an entirely different tap?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no similar accident has been reported, and the case appears to be too exceptional to call for legislation.

Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the coroner's remarks in this case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Colonel DAY: Will he not take note of the recommendations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The idea that it is necessary to legislate to deal with a case in which only one instance has been reported is perfectly ludicrous.

POOR RELIEF, POPLAR.

Sir JOHN POWER: 19.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of money to be raised for poor relief in Poplar during the present half-year and the estimated amount which will be contributed for the same purpose by the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the precise information sought by my hon. Friend is not available. I may, however, state that the guardians are raising by rate during the current half-year a sum of £292,419 and will receive from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund during the same period a sum of £1284,775.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Minister of Health the number of additional persons that are now in receipt of old age pensions as a result of the abolition by the Act of 1925, in the case of insured persons, of the means disqualification?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the latest figures for England, Scotland and Wales, 159,146 new pensions have been awarded by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, to persons of the age of 70 and upwards. It is estimated that in about one-third of these cases the
claimant would have been entitled to a pension under the Acts of 1908–1924. Exact information on this point is not, however, procurable since no investigation of the circumstances of the claimant is required in a case where a title to pension under the Act of 1925 has been established.

Mr. BATEY: 22.
asked the Minister of Health, seeing that Section 1 (1) (c) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, provides that pension shall be paid to the wife of an insured man who has attained the age of 65, such wife having attained the age of 65 but not having attained the age of 70, and that Section 2 (2) provides that for the purposes of this Act a person is deemed to be insured during any period during which he is entitled to medical benefit, if he will state why it is proposed not to issue pensions to the wives, aged between 65 and 70, of insured men who are 70 prior to 2nd January, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the introductory words of Section 1 of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, "Subject to the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of contributions … and otherwise," which qualify the general provisions of the Section. The specific provision in the Act which confers an old age pension on a woman, whil between the ages of 65 and 70, who is the wife of an insured man, is contained in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 and that paragraph requires, as a condition of her qualification, that her husband should have been entitled to an old age pension while between the ages of 65 and 70.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the country about this Section, and is there any simple explanation people can have so that they may know what their rights are? Members of Parliament are receiving letters about this.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The inspectors of my Department have been requested to give any information they can to persons requiring it, and their addresses are to be obtained at all post offices.

Mr. BROWN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a circular would be of great advantage, because Members of Parliament are receiving a number of letters on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am rather afraid the issue of a circular might perhaps tend to complicate matters rather than to clarify them. I think really oral explanations are the most useful where it is a matter of understanding the meaning of perhaps a rather difficult Section of an Act of Parliament.

Colonel DAY: Are the addresses pasted up in post offices or must applicants go to the counter to inquire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are pasted up.

Mr. BECKETT: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the case of an insured person who has been disallowed unemployment insurance benefit, but has continued to sign on at the Employment Exchange, the person would be considered to be genuinely unemployed and contributions be deemed to have been paid, so that pension would he payable under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, if the person was aged 65 on or before 2nd January, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The disallowance of a claim for unemployment benefit would not of itself defeat the title to an old age pension on 2nd January, 1928, nor on the other hand would the fact that the insured person continued to sign on at the Exchange alter such disallowance be conclusive evidence that he satisfied the requirements of the Contributory Pensions Act for the grant of contributions in respect of weeks of genuine unemployment. Before a decision on this point is arrived at in connection with a claim for an old age pension, all the relevant circumstances will be investigated by my Department.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me if, in any publication or Circular of his Department, there are any rules or facts laid down that may guide unemployed men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will send the hon. Member the literature which has been issued on the subject.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (INSURED PERSONS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now state the number of males and females, respectively, who were insured under the National Health Insurance Act in England and Wales at the end of 1926, and the increases since the end of 1925?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The approximate number of insured persons in England and Wales at the end of 1926 (inclusive of persons over 70 years of age who have ceased to pay contributions) was:


Males
…
…
…
9,857,000


Females
…
…
…
4,658,000


the increases since the end of 1925 being 251,000 and 68,000, respectively.

BUILDING MATERIAL PRICES COMMITTEE.

Mr. THURTLE: 27.
asked the Minister of Health when the inter-departmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials last met?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The last meeting of the main Committee was on the 3rd March last, and I understand that it is meeting again to-day.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if this Committee is to exercise any effective control over building prices and materials, it ought to meet more frequently than that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It does not follow that because the Committee has not met at much more frequent intervals it has been idle. A great amount of negotiation and discussion have been going on apart from meetings.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. entleman for ever shelved the recommendations of the Linlithgow Committee, which made certain specific recommendation with regard to the control of prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have to refresh my memory as to what the recommendations of the Linlithgow Committee were before I answered that question.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. THURTLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if it is the intention of his Department to introduce new legislation for the purpose of expediting the clearance of slum areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the lion. Member to the reply which was given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Finchley on the 14th February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDITS (DEFAULTS).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there have been any defaults on account of the agricultural credits advanced by the Public Works Loan Board; and what is the amount advanced?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): On the 31st March last instalments of loans were in arrear to the extent of £6,933 of which £5,961 represented interest. The total advances actually made to date are about £4,200,000 but loans granted and under consideration will raise this total to about £5,000,000.

OUSE DRAINAGE.

Mr. WELLS: 33.
asked the Minister or Agriculture if he will obtain a Report from the Ouse Drainage Board as to the present conditions of the river and banks in the area for which it is responsible, and as to whether there is any immediate danger of inundation and the return of the whole area to primeval conditions?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend does not consider that there has been any change in the situation since the Ouse Commission reported, which would make a further report necessary, but it will be open to parties interested who hold a contrary view to state their ease when the Ouse Drainage Bill is before the Select Committee.

Mr. WELLS: Is not this body responsible for this area?

UNSTAMPED RECEIPTS.

Viscount SANDON: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue
does he estimate will be lost to the State in this and in a full financial year in consequence of the new move of the Midland Bank as to non-stamped cheques for small sums, and on the assumption that other banks act likewise; and whether he proposes taking any steps to safeguard such revenue?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a large joint stock bank has introduced a system of unstamped receipts to supersede, in certain cases, the use of cheques for sums under two pounds; that this innovation will result in an exemption from Stamp Duty which it has not been thought justifiable to confer by direct legislation; that the new receipts give to the bank's customers and the general public none of those safeguards against fraud and that recourse against the drawee in cases of negligence and error which, in the case of cheques, are given by the Bills of Exchange Acts and other legal protections; and whether, in these circumstances, he will either propose the removal of the Stamp Duty on cheques under two pounds or, if that course be deemed undesirable, take any measures necessary to protect the public and the revenue from the disadvantage of this innovation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen in the Press the statement about the issue of these receipts. The general legal position of these receipts is primarily a matter for the consideration of those who issue them and those who use them. Nevertheless, it involves a number of questions of public interest. The revenue aspects of the proposal are also important. Neither the Board of Inland Revenue nor the Treasury, still less His Majesty's Government, have been consulted upon, or expressed any opinion about, the principles involved. We are consulting counsel upon the question of the liability of these receipts to Stamp Duty. I am not yet in possession of the legal view, nor can I at present form any reliable estimate of the possible loss of revenue. I may, however, say that should it be found necessary to safeguard the Revenue from a serious inroad detrimental to the finances of the year, there will he ample time to deal with the matter before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is concluded.

Captain GARRO-J ONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bankers Clearing House Committee is meeting to-day, that a large number of bankers are inaugurating this system, which is spreading rapidly, and can he not expedite some public declaration from the Exchequer as to the advantage and the necessity of protecting the Revenue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I expect the bankers at their meeting to-day be aware of the tenor of the answer which I have just given, and I think they will be very likely to postpone any action.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to see that his answer is forwarded at once to the Clearing House Committee for their meeting this afternoon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gave directions yesterday for some of the officials of the Treasury to place themselves in communication with some of the representatives of the banks.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to Press paragraphs to the effect that the Treasury authorities are prepared to support this scheme, and are in no way antagonistic to it, that a different view from that appeared at least in two London newspapers, and would it not be better that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should issue a definite statement that the Treasury could not support this scheme?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am in no way responsible for the statements which have appeared in the Press, and I think that I must wait until I am fortified by counsel's opinion before making a definite statement on the legal position. As I have said, we have not been consulted on the principle involved.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these banks have not been encouraged by the statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to a question of mine in which he said it was not compulsory to put a twopenny stamp on receipts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They may have been encouraged, but that only shows the grave responsibility which attaches to Members who put questions.

Mr. ALBERY: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the encouragement of this new system may prove to be a valuable source of revenue to him in the near future, when a suitable tax could be inaugurated in the form of a penny stamp?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think all these matters ought to be considered, but as far as I have been able to ascertain the consequences of what is at present proposed will not be very satisfactory from the point of view of the Revenue of the year.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot go on with this discussion.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BLANESBURGH REPORT).

Mr. STEPHEN: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state whether he intends to introduce legislation this Session based upon the Report of the Blanesburgh Unemployment Insurance Committee?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance and urgency of this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when he is likely to be able to make a statement upon it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As soon as I am in a position either to make a statement or to say definitely when I shall be able to make a statement, I shall be very glad to inform the hon. Member and shall look forward afterwards to the unqualified support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite if we are able to bring in a Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time the whole of unemployment insurance is in a very chaotic state, that all persons interested are looking forward to a new Bill containing further proposals; and, in view of the urgency of the matter, will he rot consider making an early statement?

Sit. A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will make a statement as soon as I can as to the future but that fact does not indicate chaos at the moment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We really cannot have a discussion on the matter.

NEW FOREST (TREE FELLING).

Sir J. POWER: 35.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether it is intended to cut any more hardwood trees in the New Forset during the coming autumn and winter; and, if so, if he can specify where such cutting will take place?

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Cutting plans have not yet been got out but will be prepared in the course of the summer.

EXPLOSION, SOUTH ACTON.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now give a definite date for the promised inquiry in connection with the South Acton explosion; where the inquiry is to be held; and at what hour it is proposed to commence each day?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Arrangements are being made to open this inquiry at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16th June, in the Council Chamber, Municipal Offices, Acton.

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (PRESERVATION OF TREES).

Viscount SANDON: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps, by the use of licences or otherwise, to avoid trees being cut down to make room for new roads or for road alterations unless there is no proper alternative; and whether he will see that all authorities involved in this matter are co-ordinated to avoid committing vandalism?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have reason to know that local authorities, when planning their road widenings or constructing new highways, usually take great care to avoid or minimise the destruction of timber. In various cases where I considered that a modification of the scheme would enable still further trees to be
saved, I have successfully intervened, and I can assure my hon. and Noble Friend that a close watch is kept on this matter by my Department in so far as the work of highway authorities comes under my review.

GOLD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Sir F. WISE: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the imports or exports of gold from the 1st January, 1927, to as near a date as possible between Britain and Russia?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronal McNeill): I have been asked to reply. The registered values of the imports and exports of gold between this country and Russia during the period 1st January to 31st May, 1927, are:




£


Imports from Russia
…
80,190


Exports to Russia
…
1,588,820

BRITISH TROOPS, CHINA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken in the interests of the health and comfort of the troops at Shanghai during the coming hot season; and whether he has considered sending the battalions in turn to Wei-hai-wei during the hot weather?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Everything possible is being done for the comfort of the troops, and the necessary precautions have been taken to guard against outbreaks of those diseases which are liable to occur during the hot weather. A convalescent camp is being formed at Wei-hai-wei.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether only the sick will be sent to this camp at Wei-hai-wei, or whether he is considering sending the troops in their turn to Wei-hai-wei?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That suggestion has already occurred to those in command, and it is going to be carried out.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the Government consider making use of some part of the Boxer Indemnity in order to provide some additional comfort for our troops in China?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that does not arise out of the question.

Sir W. DAVISON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it arise.

Mr. BECKETT: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the 100 per cent. disablement rate of pension that would be paid to a private soldier totally incapacitated through service in China?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The rate of pension would depend on the soldier's length of service. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant Article of the Pay Warrant, which gives full particulars.

Mr. BECKETT: Am I to understand that disablement pension depends upon length of service?

Captain KING: Certainly. It may consist of the length of service element and the rank element for disablement benefit.

Mr. BECKETT: In the event of a man, either from fever or wounds, coming back totally disabled, will the amount of the sustenance he obtains depend upon his length of service?

Captain KING: Not entirely in regard to disablement pension. The actual rate of pension for total disablement depends also on rank and length of service.

Mr. BECKETT: What is the highest rate of disablement pension he can get?

Captain KING: The highest rate would depend entirely on the length of service and the rank of the man.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War why additional British troops are being sent to Peking; and whether it is the intention to deny the city to the Chinese Nationalist armies or only to strengthen the garrison of the Legation Quarter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Additional troops are being sent to Peking for the sole purpose of strengthening the garrison of the Legation Quarter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question. Is it intended to protect the whole city or only to carry out our previous practice of guarding the Legations?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I have said that it is intended to protect the Legation Quarter.

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS).

Sir J. POWER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation to make it illegal for any person or body corporate or unincorporate to receive from a foreign Government or organisation under the control of a foreign Government funds to be used for political purposes in this country?

Sir W. J0YNS0N-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. For the reasons explained by me last February in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Foreign Contributions (Interference with Trade and Industries) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, His Majesty's Government do not propose to promote any legislation dealing with this subject.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the purpose of making illegal any political organisation in this country which is directly or indirectly under the control of a foreign Government?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. As at present advised I do not think the resources of the State need to be reinforced in this way.

SOMERSET COALFIELD (WHEEL- LESS TUBS).

Mr. G. PETO: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will at an early date institute an inquiry into the use of wheelless tubs in the Somerset coalfield?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have been asked to reply. Arrangements are being made to carry out an inquiry into the use of the form of harness known as the "guss" for hauling wheelless tubs.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has reached any decision with regard to the introduction of legislation dealing with the powers and constitution of the House of Lords; and whether he proposes to deal with the matter during the lifetime of the present Parliament?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, in view of what was said in the Debate recently?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is fully covered by my answer.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Mr. BECKETT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce the proposed Suffrage Bill; and when it is likely to become operative?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 13th April in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Leicester, West, to which he has nothing to add.

Mr. BECKETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a concession of this kind is much more valuable if it is done graciously and swiftly?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I am called upon to express any opinion upon that.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that a great many people are disappointed—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already called the next question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE FACILITIES.

Mr. TAYLOR: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia, he consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the suspension of diplomatic relations between London and Moscow will affect
the judgment given on 12th May, 1921, by Lord Justices Bankes, Warrington and Scrutton?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The reply is in the negative. I am advised that the decision of His Majesty's Government to suspend diplomatic relations with the soviet Government does not affect the legal position as regards their recognition of that Government, on which the judgment of the Court of Appeal referred to by the hon. Member was based.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it perfectly clear that there is no possibility of action similar to that taken in 1920?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think I have made it quite clear by my answer that the situation remains as it was when the Court of Appeal gave their decision.

Mr. CLYNES (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether, arising out of the declaration of the Prime Minister on the 24th ultimo that the Government were prepared to make all arrangements necessary for ordinary trade facilities between this country and Russia, he can now indicate the policy the Government propose to adopt to this end?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: His Majesty's Government have no desire to place any difficulties in the way of trade between Russia and this country, and Russians desiring to come here for the purposes of bona fide trade will have the same facilities accorded to them as the nationals of any other foreign Power. The same machinery with regard to visas and all other matters will apply as heretofore with only this exception, that there will not in future be a British Passport Control Officer within Soviet Russia. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that any such permission to come here for the purpose of trade will be on the implied understanding that the holder of the passport dons not indulge in activities or propaganda detrimental to this country.

Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask whether Russia will be in the same position as other nations under the Trade Facilities Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That question must be addressed elsewhere.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any confirmation of the report that the harbour of Vladivostok has been closed to British ships, and can he say whether any special arrangements are being made with reference to British fishing vessels which frequent that port?

Sir W. OYNSON-HICKS: As regards the first question, the answer is that that Government has no information at ali. In regard to the second question, I am afraid I must ask for notice before I can give details.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the absence of Consuls for protecting British shipping interests and British seamen in Russian ports, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will advise British shipping interests to continue to trade in those ports?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that at the moment complete arrangements are not yet made. I have already stated that the Norwegian Government have been asked to take charge of the interests of British nationals in Russian ports, and I can see no reason whatever why British nationals should not trade with Russian nationals and Russian nationals trade with us.

Colonel DAY: Have the Norwegian Government the power to visa passports?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a question which has not yet been settled. The complete details have not yet been settled.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the fact that the Norwegian and German Governments have regular Consular services in Russian ports, would not British traders be safer if they used Norwegian and German ships?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think so.

Colonel DAY: May I ask who will be responsible until the time when that matter is settled, so that passports can be visad and Russians come here to trade?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Anybody can apply here for a visa, if he wishes to come here, and any Russian subject can apply in any town in the world where there happens to be a British passport office.

ARCOS, LIMITED (MISSING DOCUMENT).

Mr. TAYLOR: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to whether the document, which was the occasion for the search of Arcos, Limited, and the offices of the Trade Delegation, has been published by the Soviet Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer is in the negative.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Clynes.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not customary to allow a second round of Questions?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not on this particular occasion, when the House is about to adjourn.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday, 13th June."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words "Monday, 13th" and to insert instead thereof the words "Wednesday, 8th."
I am moving this Amendment in order to ventilate a grievance. My complaint is against the policy of the Government in allowing so little time for the discussion of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill.

DEPUTY - SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment is in order, but his grievance is not, because the question of the Closure and the allotment of time on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill is a decision of the House.

Mr. BATEY: I only want to argue against the very limited amount of time which is allowed in Committee and which has presented some of us ever having the chance of saying a word in Committee.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: That is exactly what is not in order. It is not in order to move anything reflecting on the Closure, which in the ordinary sense is an act of the House, or on the allotment of time, which is equally an act of the House, and has been so affirmed by frequent rulings for the last 40 years. The hon. Member may move his Amendment if he wishes, but he cannot argue against the Closure and the allotment of time.

Mr. BATEY: It is no use moving my Amendment unless there is an object.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do I understand that the hon. Member does or does not move his Amendment?

Mr. BATEY: Oh, yes, I shall move it. My complaint is in regard to the limited amount of time that is given to this Bill; but that was only my first argument. My second argument is this, that the Bill has still to go through Report stage and Third Reading, and I submit that more time should be given to it than has been decided.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the amount of time that has been allotted to the Bill, because that is a decision of the House. Does the hon. Member still move?

Mr. BATEY: Oh, yes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: beg to second the Amendment.
In a few words I wish to give some reasons which are perhaps more in order. This House should set an example of short holidays. The holiday now proposed is too long. Hon. Members opposite will expect their workpeople to come back the day after Whit Monday and I submit that it is not a good example for the House to adjourn for this length of time. After all we only work five days a week, and in many cases hon. Members took yesterday off, being Derby Day, and will probably take the rest of the week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself !"] I am speaking for myself, and I am also speaking for the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) because we were both there yesterday, and we are here to-day.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Member
to make reflections on the way in which other hon. Members discharge their duties in this House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is by no means unusual.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is notorious that the present Government use their supporters in batches like soldiers and sailors; some of them are deliberately allowed leave owing to the large and unwieldy and docile majority which the Government has in the House. I could give further reasons, but I do not want to rub it in, but agriculture, unemployment in the mining industry, the general trade depression, and extravagance in the public Departments, are subjects which should be considered and discussed and time should be found for their discussion. Yet the energetic Home Secretary, sometimes too energetic, proposes that this House should rise to-day and not come back until Monday week. There is much to be said for the Amendment and that is why I second it.

Mr. E. BROWN: I wish to support the Amendment. Several hon. Members have put questions to the Minister of Labour within the last month, asking for the early production of the Bill which is to deal with unemployment insurance. This is a vital matter in at least a score of the great cities and towns of the country and we can get no satisfactory information about it. It is a matter which is causing a great deal of anxiety to hundreds and thousands of men who will he affected by the provisions of such a Measure, and an earlier assembly of the House would enable the Government to give an earlier answer as to their intentions, and they could produce a Bill with the prospect of getting it passed into law at an earlier date than that which will now be possible.

Mr. STEPHEN: There are two reasons why I wish to support the Amendment. To-day I asked the Minister of Labour

a question with regard to unemployment insurance, and his reply was most unsatisfactory. It showed that the Ministry of Labour is not working satisfactorily. There is a very brutal Report and there are large numbers of people worried as to whether this brutal Report is to be the subject of legislation. I think the Minister should give us the earliest opportunity of knowing whether he intends to carry through the brutal policy suggested in that Report. My second reason is that I assume that the Government are now considering whether they will give their masters, the electorate, an opportunity of—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That seems hardly a reason why we should come back on Wednesday.

Mr. STEPHEN: If I had been given a minute to complete the paragraph of my speech you would have seen, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there was a reason for coming back on Wednesday. It is very important that we should have an opportunity of asking the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evident dissatisfaction of the people of the country with his administration, he is going to take the voice of the country through a general election.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask that question when other topics have been disposed of.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to support the Amendment, because I think it is imperative that we should have an opportunity of keeping in close touch with the Government, which the by-elections have shown is so unpopular in the country.

Mr. BATEY: Seeing that we have made our protest, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question put, "That the words 'Monday, 13th' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 149: Noes, 36.

Division No. 172.]
AYES.
[11. 56 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Broun- Lindsay, Major H.


Albery, Irving James
Betterton, Henry B.
Buchan, John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Astor, Mal. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bridge man. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Actor, Viscountess
Briscoe, Richard George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Clarry, Reginald George


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Ccpe, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.


Couper, J. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jacob, A. E.
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Joynson-Hicks Rt. Hon. Sir William
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith- Carington, Neville W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Ellis, R. G
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.s.-M.)
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maclntyre, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fairfax, Capain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Waddington, R.


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Finburgh, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Forestier -Walker, Sir L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wells, S. R.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harrison. G. J. C.
Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Woimer, Viscount


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Womersley, W. J.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oakley, T.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Hilton, Cecil
Power, Sir John Cecil
Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Palln, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeliy)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Mr. Batey and Mr. Ernest Brown.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday, 13th June.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

"to provide for the humane slaughter of animals in Scotland," presented by Colonel MOORE; supported by Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Templeton, Sir Robert Hamilton, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Couper, Mr. Westwood, and Sir Archibald Sinclair; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st July, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

12 n.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: There has been circulated to Members of the House during the past few days from the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations a statement in regard to the Washington Hours Convention, which purports to be a statement of fact, but which appears to be based upon a complete misapprehension if not a piece of deliberate deception in regard to the matter. This statement says that in July, 1921, Parliament, after full deliberation and discussion, decided not to ratify. In July, 1921, what happened was this. The then 'Minister of Labour, Dr. Macnamara, moved this Resolution:
That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the several Conventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Conference at Washington in November, 1919."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1921; col. 2498, Vol.143.]
When that Resolution was put to the House 22 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Front Bench opposite voted for it, and in the course of his speech on the Resolution, the Minister made it clear what was the intention of the Government at that time. He said:
I have more and more come to the conclusion that it would not be serving the ultimate interests of this movement to put forward a system of ratification with reservations. … We propose to send a letter to Geneva explaining the difficulties which here confront us and intimating that we shall be very glad to take part in a reconsideration of the Hours Convention, probably drawn on lather more elastic lines, at a future Congress of the International Labour Organisation. …I was only going to say this, do not let those who are impatient to secure ratification in some form or other set aside the wisdom of proceeding along lines which may in the end lead to ratification more real and solid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1St July, 1921; cols. 2506-7, Vol. 143.]
So that the statement of the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations that Parliament decided not to ratify is entirely misleading, and I hope no further attention will be paid to a document which is based upon that statement. When this question was under discussion in February last, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said:
The Government have set up a Cabinet Committee which at this moment is charged with the duty of examining the whole position with a view to arriving at an early conclusion. … What I have said is enough or ought to be enough to remove any feeling in any quarter of the House that the Government are indifferent to the importance of this matter or are unmindful of coming to an early decision upon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1927; col. 162, Vol. 203.]
A month later he repeated the earlier part of that statement, and intimated that ratificaion involved legislation, and that a Bill must be prepared very carefully; and he almost. led us to believe that such a Bill was being prepared. He intimated that the Committee had been appointed five weeks previously. Coming to -19th May, the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) put a question—

Mr. WADDINGTON: On a point of Order. The statement was made that His Majesty's Government had not decided to refuse ratification. In a letter sent on 22nd July, 1921—

Mr. DEPUTY.SPEAKER: This appears to be an argument, not a point of Order.

Mr. WADDINGTON: It is a statement of the facts.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. WILSON: As I was saying, on 19th May the Noble Lady inquired whether any decision had been arrived at, and the Minister replied with a statement made in another place by the Lord President of the Council to which he said he had nothing to add. Then on 26th May my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) asked whether the French Government had passed a Bill for ratification with a proviso inserted by the Senate that it was only to take effect after ratification by Germany and Great
Britain, and also what was the intention of the Government? The reply was that the Government were aware of what the French Government had done, but that there was nothing to be added to the reply of 19th May. A further question was put as to whether any definite reply would be given within two or three months, and the answer was that the question could be repeated but that there was nothing then to add to previous replies. I suggest that these replies do not reassure us that any real progress is being made.
Then we find that Earl Balfour on 4th May, in another place, in the absence of Lord Cecil, said there was need for great care to prevent misunderstanding as to what was involved in ratification. He expressed very great regret that six or seven years had elapsed and that practically nothing bad been done, and he proceeded to intimate that the policy of the Government was to proceed with the legislation which was required before ratification could take place and, immediately after that legislation was accomplished, to proceed with a policy of ratification. When we ask, however, whether there is anything in the way of legislation proceeding at the present time, whether any Bill for ratification is being drafted, we do not seem to be able to get any information at all. Although we know from the International Labour Office what other countries are doing, we cannot get any knowledge at all as to what our own country is doing. In the course of that speech Earl Balfour said that 90 per cent. Of the industrial population of this country were enjoying all they would ever enjoy under the Convention if it was ratified. While that is true, it is no reason why we should not endeavour to get the whole Convention ratified. He proceeded to say:
I do not myself see why there should be any serious delay in carrying it out. The Government desire to carry it out, desire to pass the necessary legislation, and desire, after they have passed the necessary legislation, to go through the stage of ratification. Of that I can assure the House there need be no doubt whatever.
When is it going to be done? The delay seems to continue. We do not seem to get any further forward. Has there been, as was suggested, consultation with other industrial powers, or are such con sultations now taking place? Earl Balfour pleaded for patience, but it is
exasperating to many of us here, as well as to other countries, that there should be this continued delay. There is not a word in Earl Balfour's speech to suggest that during the two or three months which have elapsed since the appointment of the Cabinet Committee there has been either any real progress at home or any inquiry abroad. Since that speech there has been another speech in the other place which is more disquieting. It was delivered by Lord Cecil on 17th May, and dealing with the question of the moral obligation of this country, he said:
I think it a very unfortunate thing, personally, when it becomes necessary not only in this case but in any case for a Government to take a different view from that which is taken by its representative in an international assembly.
Certainly, I think the House would agree that that is the attitude which every Member would desire to take. Then he referred to the challenge made to the Minister of Labour in 1925 on the whole question of the moral obligation arising from the representative of the British Government having voted in favour of the Labour Convention. The Minister of Labour said:
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Fisher) that if a Convention IS adopted at Geneva by the country, it ought to be on the understanding that the country intends to ratify and will do its very best to ratify it, but that it should itself be absolutely hound, without some loophole, I think he will recognise is not practical politics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1925; col. 2511, Vol. 182.]
I can conceive of very few occasions upon which the idea of endeavouring to find some loophole of that kind will not cause infinite mischief when publicly put in that way. It seems to be disastrous for any Government, and more particularly the Government of this country, to take up a position of this sort.

Mr. CLARRY: Or to ratify.

Mr. WILSON: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of saying anything which he has to say. My time is limited, and I am not going to reply to interruptions. There is not a word from Earl Balfour or the Minister of Labour or Lord Cecil to say that any progress has been made since the Cabinet Committee was appointed. Meanwhile we are having pressure on the Government by
the National Union of Manufacturers, the Federation of Master Printers and Allied Trades, the Federation of Master Cotton-Spinners, and one knows not who else, and, lastly, we have the pressure from this Confederation of Employers' Organisations. Furthermore, Lord Cecil does not seem to be expressing the same view as Earl Balfour, who said that the desire of the Government was to pass the necessary legislation. The hope that Lord Cecil expresses is that there will be a loophole out of the obligation placed on us by what our representative has done. What is the position to-day as regards the Convention? There is a, statement by the International Labour Office dealing with 39 States. In the case of 10 there has been no registration and no approval of the Convention on Hours of Labour. These are Cuba, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State and Great Britain. This information with regard to these 10 States which have not agreed to ratification, is going around the world and our whole reputation is at stake in regard to it. We seem to be basing our position upon the desirability of having a loophole through which we can get away from ratification. In the Director's Report of the International Labour Conference, published quite recently, reference is made to the difficulties in the drafting of Conventions and the procedure for ratification, and the report proceeds:
The fact is then that few formal difficulties arise on the drafting of conventions or in regard to the procedure for ratification. Perhaps they would have completely disappeared if the governing body had thought that it could … exercise the power of giving interpretation.
It is quite true that there was a Conference summoned here in March of last year and there seemed to be some hope of progress, but there were States not represented and the complaint was made that the employers were not represented, and the outlook appeared to be altogether too narrow to offer hope of progress. What we should like to ask this morning is: what has been done in the way of consultation with other States; what has been done in the way of consultation with employers, and what has been done in the way of consultation with organised labour? The Cabinet
Committee, with the best intentions in the world, cannot go into all these matters of detail at the present time in a way which will give us any hope that anything will be done to arrive at an early decision. In a further portion of the report of the director we find this:
Down to the discussion in 1924 the general policy was one of waiting, silence and more or less conscious inertia.
Who is responsible for this policy It is not a question of parties in this House but of countries. What the people abroad see is this country of ours. They are regardless of one party or another, and they ask who is responsible for the waiting, silence and inertia, and they find the answer in the report of the director when he says:
The British Government, the Government for which most of the other States allege that they are waiting to give the signal before they themselves ratify"—
That cannot be a good thing from any point of view. Why should this country, having 90 per cent. of its workers unaffected by the Convention hold back? There is a heavy responsibility upon us. Has not the policy which we have adopted all the outward appearance of waiting, silence and more or less conscious inertia?

Mr. CLARRY: And common sense.

Mr. WILSON: Earl Balfour, in the speech to which I have referred, said there was need for great care to prevent misunderstanding in regard to interpretations, but there is equal need for great care to prevent the effects of this waiting, silence and more or less conscious inertia. The time has come for some clear declaration, and we should get rid of all evasion and all talk about loopholes. We need to be told here, both for ourselves and for the sake of other-countries, what is being done, and how soon legislation is to be introduced and when we shall be able to ratify. It appears to me, as I have said, that this is not a question of parties but of what other countries are thinking of us. They are looking to us, and when we ratify they win be prepared to ratify. Our honour is at stake, and only by a bold and courageous declaration can we hope that others will believe in our sincerity.

Mr. CLAYTON: In my opinion this is a question of whether we should ratify
this Convention or not, and I think we are not in any way bound to ratify, if, in our opinion, it is not to the advantage of this country. I should like to call attention to what Lord Cecil said on 17th May last. The one point he said which we ought to emphasise was what was necessary for the good of the country, and he said our decision as to ratification or otherwise must depend upon that. The Minister of Labour also said in this House in April, 1925:
You cannot put the existing life of the country into the straight-jacket which that particular Convention would provide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1925; col. 2519, Vol. 182.]
I maintain that no advantage would be obtained from ratification, because without ratification employers in this country are doing better for their work-people than is done for the workpeople in any other country, whether it has or has not ratified the Convention. The last speaker mentioned that more than 90 per cent. of our workpeople are working eight hours or less a day, but he omitted to say that the balance includes those people who are working on continuous processes, which would be exempted, I understand, even if ratification were carried out.

Mr. C. WILSON: I was merely quoting what Lord Balfour ham said in the House of Lords.

Mr. CLAYTON: I am taking the actual figures. Over 92 per cent. work 48 hours or less a week, and amongst the balance are those employed on continuous processes. In the industry which I know best overtime is paid at the rate of time and a-half after 45⅓ hours per week, so that the workers have no grievance, and they do not think they have. It must be borne in mind, also, that in this country the hours are the actual hours in the works, so that ratification, coupled with the fact that the period worked would not be confined to 48 hours' effective work, would mean that people in this country would, under ratification, work at least 54 hours per week, that is, a nine hours' day instead of an eight hours' day. I do not know whether that would satisfy the Labour party, but I do not think it would be popular in the country. In this country we pay overtime rates when more than eight hours a day are worked, and this is an effective
check upon the abuse of overtime; besides, the representatives of Labour would speedily call attention to any abuse of overtime. Under present arrangements hours and wages are settled here by the method of collective bargaining, and the results are infinitely more satisfactory than they would be under any cut-and dried legislation which aimed at uniformity with foreign countries which, in my opinion, will never be achieved. Legislation in this country is obeyed in its actual letter, whereas abroad innumerable exceptions are permitted, the law being read in a different spirit, with the result that with universal ratification there would simply be chaos with this country heavily handicapped. The employers of this country have no desire to depart from the present practice of an eight-hour working day, which in actual practice is less than eight hours in about 50 per cent. of cases; they desire to abide by collective bargaining, without State interference; and they feel that the role of this country is to set an example of how labour problems should be settled, and to leave the rest of the world to follow our lead.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We on these benches feel that we are entitled once again to raise the issue of the Washington Hours Convention in this House. This is not the first time we have brought the subject to the attention of the Government; but, strangely enough, every time the issue is raised, the replies we get from the Government become more feeble as the years go by. The Government have been in office for two and a half years, and time and again they have promised that the Convention would be ratified; but nothing tangible has been done yet. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson) has already quoted statements made in this place by the Minister of Labour, and the Parliamentary Secretary—who, by the way, carried the matter a stage further than his chief—and by the representative of the Government in the House of Lords. All those statements indicate that the Government have been doing something; but, as far as I know, that something is confined to appointing Committees of Inquiry. That is not good enough for us; we want something much more effective than an inquiry. We want the Minister to-day to give us a more definite statement than he has ever given us before.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton) has trotted out a lot of old arguments which have been used in this House on behalf of employers of labour throughout the last century. If to-day we were seeking, say, a reduction of hours from 70 a week to 60, his argument would apply just in the same way. Every one of the reasons he gave us this morning have been used in the past against trade boards, against shop hours legislation, in fact, against every piece of social and industrial legislation ever introduced into this House.

Mr. CLARRY: Ninety-five per cent. of the people are already getting any benefit they might receive under the Convention.

Mr. DAVIES: That does not in the least destroy the arguments I used to combat what the hon. Member said. There is always a small but powerful section of employers in this country who oppose every movement which tends to benefit the working classes.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not all.

Mr. DAVIES: Not all. There are notable exceptions, as I indicated, and were it not for those notable exceptions we should still, I suppose, be in the feudal state. I said a moment ago that the hon. Member for Attercliffe had given quotations to prove that the Government have, at any rate, promised to carry the matter a step further; but we are not going to be satisfied with their many promises which never mature. As far as I know, the most important event in this connection has emerged recently in France, where the Chamber of Deputies have approved the ratifying Bill as amended by the Senate. That Measure provides for ratification by France conditionally upon similar action by Germany and Great Britain. What has been said on the question in another place is very interesting in this connect ion. Lord Balfour talked of the necessity for all the great industrial Powers to know exactly what it is they are to ratify. Surely the Minister of Labour could have told him that; but the voice of Lord Balfour about ratification was the feeble voice of the Prime Minister on the subject.
It seems to me that the doubtful statement against ratification we have received this morning on behalf of the employers
explains exactly what the Government would like to see accomplished were it not for the electorate whom they will have to face later. The claim made by our Government is that we must have simultaneous ratification; that is also the main point of the argument of the employers' representatives in this House. If we had always adopted the attitude of waiting until other countries came up to our standard what would be the position of the workpeople in this country? It would be appalling! Siam, fur instance, which is by the way affiliated to the International Labour Organisation, has a population of 10,000,000 people. There is little or no labour organisation there. As far as I know there is not a single piece of real industrial legislation, as we know it, in the country; it is still in a feudal state. Are we to be asked to wait until Siam comes up to our standard before we make another step forward 4 Surely that is not the mind of the British people.

Mr. CLARRY: We are already doing it. You have not dealt with the point I raised just now, as to whether you deny that the workers in this country already have every advantage they would get under the terms of the Convention.

Mr. DAVIES: The position is as the hon. Gentleman states. The fact that over 90 per cent. of our workpeople are working 48 hours per week or less is, strangely enough, used as an argument against ratification.

Mr. CLARRY: Surely!

Mr. DAVIES: Surely the argument ought to be, that because 90 per cent. of our workpeople are employed for 48 hours a week or less Parliament ought to take the logical step of bringing the other 10 per cent. into line. The hon. Member represents Newport. If 90 per cent. of the people of Newport enjoyed a concession by legislation would he be prepared to stand up here and say that the other 10 per cent must remain out? He would never get elected again if he adopted that attitude.

Mr. CLARRY: The point is not quite analogous. Under the terms of the Convention certain process workers would be exempt, and in the 10 per cent. are numerous process workers who would not gain the benefit at all. I doubt very much whether the percentage could be
increased above the percentage that exists to-day, even if the Convention were ratified.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman is playing into my hands again. If, as stated by him, practically all the working people of this country who would come within the terms of the Convention are now working under similar conditions, why on earth should not all of them be brought within the Convention?

Mr. CLARRY: We do not want State control. They are getting the benefits now by negotiation.

Mr. DAVIES: If this Convention were to benefit employers at the expense of the workpeople, the hon. Gentleman would not complain. The hon. Gentleman never takes up his present attitude when it is a question of employers getting State aid. He does not object to the State giving them subsidies for this, that and the other.

Mr. CLARRY: We are against any interference.

Mr. DAVIES: Surely the time has gone by when an hon. Member can stand up in this Assembly and say that the State shall not enact legislation in favour of working people who are sometimes exploited by employers. Another argument which has been put forward is this. The hon. Member for Widnes stated that when we pass legislation it is pursued very much better than it is in other countries. I wish he would investigate that point a little further. When last I spoke in this House on this issue, I said that the only method of finding out whether a piece of legislation was being carried into effect or not was by noting the number of inspectors employed by the Government to see that the law is carried out, and by the test of the number of prosecutions taken into the Courts. On that occasion I gave the House the figures provided I think officially by the International Labour Organisation; and it was proved over and over again that although our claim may be true in part it is not true as a whole. There are countries which enforce their laws as well as we enforce ours; and if the hon. Gentleman has read the Report of the Home Office in relation to the inspection of factories, he will find that we have
hardly a sufficient number of inspectors to see that our own laws are carried out.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is it not a fact that in France there has not been a single factory inspection report, either to a municipal authority or to the Government, since 1913?

Mr. DAVIES: I would not like to dispute that, but that is new to me, and is quite contrary to the evidence in my possession.

Mr. WADDINGTON: As regards France?

Mr. DAVIES: I am prepared to look into that subject; but although I am willing to admit that on the whole it is probable that the law is better pursued in this country, it is not true to say that other countries simply pass Acts of Parliament and that nothing happens—that everyone is allowed to break the law. That is the deduction to be drawn from the statement of the hon. Member for Widnes. We are anxious for ratification for another reason. It can be proved that workpeople employed for 48 hours a week or less produce every often as much as they did when working longer. An hon. Member shakes his head. He ought to read the report on the munitions workers in this country. It was proved in some cases that women working on munitions produced more in a fewer number of hours than they did in a larger number.

Mr. CLARRY: Was that during the War? The Convention was waived during the War.

Mr. DAVIES: It was proved to be so in the case of a large engineering firm in Manchester, even before the War.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether that was Mather and Platt's?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member is a master of the art of interruption, but I hope he will allow me to conclude my speech. It is evident from the discussion this morning that the representatives of employers in this House are determined that this Convention shall not be ratified. That is very obvious. We are anxious for the ratification of the Convention so that the honour of this country may be sustained. That is a very important point. The hon. Member for Attercliffe
was quite right when he said that the people of France, Belgium and Germany never troubled about the political colour of the Government in power in this land; all that matters to them is that the British Government have put their signature to this Convention. They are not concerned as to whether the Government are Labour, Conservative or Liberal. The point they look at is that the British Government are pledged to this Convention; and they fail to understand, therefore, why we have not carried out our promises. The failure of the Government to ratify the Convention develops a tendency to extend the hours of labour in this country. Prior to the War the hours in shops were about 70 a week. The War probably did more to reduce hours of labour in shops than any other force. Employés in shops and warehouses are, by the way, the most numerous section of workers engaged in any single industry in the country. There is always a tendency in this House to extend the hours of labour in shops and in other industries too; and the non-ratification of this Convention is a direct incentive to bad employers to extend the hours of their work-people. For the several reasons I have given I appeal once again to the Minister of Labour to carry this matter a stage further; not merely to say that a Cabinet Committee has been appointed, but to let us know that it has reported, and that legislation will ensue at once. He will not have done what is his obvious duty unless he tells us now that it is the intention of the Government to ratify this Convention and that at long last he will shortly translate the Convention into law in order that the honour of this country may be maintained in the eyes of the world.

Mr. FIELDEN: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I wish to make clear the position of the railway companies. The railways at present have an eight-hour day and a six-day week, but they are obliged to work overtime on certain days, owing to the fact that the flow of traffic is intermittent, and, also, they are obliged to work on Sundays. The men are paid overtime rates. If this Convention is ratified, it will mean that conditions and hours in the railway service will again be in the melting-pot. That is something
for which the directorate of the railway companies certainly would not wish, and I am equally certain that the leaders of the Railwaymen's Union do not wish for it. We have been told that the case of the railways is covered by certain words in the Convention.
In March last a conference of the major Powers was held in this country. and on 19th March certain conclusions of that conference were published by the Minister of Labour. These included the following:
It is agreed that the railways are covered by the Convention. In so far as Article 5 and Article 6 (a) are not sufficient for the needs of the railways, the necessary overtime is permissible under Article 6 (b).
That statement has gone forward, and the railway companies have taken the best legal advice that they can obtain. That advice says that this deduction is incorrect, that under those Articles and Sub-Articles the railway companies' present arrangements would be forbidden. I, therefore, rise with the object of making it quite clear, and of making our protest, that under the present Convention the railway companies' arrangements would have to be entirely recast. It may be that the Convention could be signed with a qualification, but if that were done, the qualification would entirely destroy the signing of the Convention. The signing of the Convention can only be the signing of the actual words in that Convention, and as we are advised that those actual words would prevent the railways in this country from being carried on as they are carried on at present, we wish to make our protest in this House.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have listened very attentively both to past Debates and to this Debate and to the arguments that have been adduced in favour of the Government being pressed to sign the Convention quickly and without further delay, and, an the other side, I have read with some surprise a pamphlet which has apparently been circulated to Members this morning and which I also have only just seen. It is quite clear that we have two sets of entirely conflicting views. There are those who ask the Government to leap practically without looking, or at any rate without properly considering the obstacles, and there are those who, when we want to consider the question with a view to ratifying, are ready that we
should consider but apparently on the condition that we should never ratify. Those are two sets of conflicting views, and I propose to deal with them shortly. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has adduced arguments which we have heard before. He has said that this Government is in honour bound to ratify this Convention. I take this opportunity of saying that it is nothing of the kind. It is perfectly well known—and I should think that of all people the hon. Member ought to know it—that when a Government representative goes to Geneva, what he does is that he concurs (if he does concur) in the adoption of a draft Convention for submission to the different Governments. There is no obligation on the Governments to ratify.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If that contention be correct, what is the use of going to Geneva?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What is the use of drafting a Bill for this House? Obviously, a draft has to be prepared in the first instance before ever a Bill can be passed here, and a Convention has to be drafted, and under the circumstances of international negotiations it has to be discussed at Geneva before ratification by the home Governments can possibly take place. What I have said is absolutely the case. It is true with regard to the Washington Convention, and it is true with regard to other Conventions. I have in my hand a table of the Conventions which have been adopted at Geneva and elsewhere and of those that have been ratified by different countries. For a citizen of this country to criticise the position which is occupied by this country as contrasted with other countries is, I say, quite ludicrous. Of those draft Conventions, with the adoption of which our representative has concurred, our record in the matter of ratification is distinctly better than that of others whose names have been mentioned to-day, whether it be France, or Germany, or Italy, or Spain, or Czechoslovakia, or Belgium. The hon. Member for Westhoughton, if I remember aright a previous speech of his—I may not be accurate, but, if I am not, perhaps he will correct me—said, "Oh, yes, you are ready to ratify a Convention when it costs you nothing, but you hesitate about ratifying it when
it costs you something." I ask the House if there ever was such a topsy turvy way of looking at the matter. Would he wish us to ratify without consideration the Conventions that cost us something, and then to hesitate about those that cost us nothing?
Let me take another point. I do not believe that those who ask the Government to go ahead so quickly have the faintest realisation of the practical difficulties in the way. I have always said with absolute sincerity that I look upon them as difficulties to be faced, but to pretend that they are not there and to deal in generalities is no help whatever towards getting this Convention ratified. Take an instance which was brought forward by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden)—the question of overtime. The usual view over here held by other lawyers than those whom the hon. Member has quoted is that under a strict British legal interpretation of the Convention, taken by itself, the present overtime system in force in this country and accepted by both workmen and employers in this country would be impossible, whether on the railways, in the engineering trades, or in an industry such as ship repairing. Under those circum, stances, is it not true that some care ought to be taken to see that we get a workable instrument? More particularly is this important because abroad the interpretation is different. Under their interpretation it would be possible for the railways to work overtime, which under our legal interpretation here it would not be possible for them to do. What would be the results if we were to go so gaily ahead as we are asked to do? The results would be that when we have had a hard enough time here on all sides we might have our industry hampered grossly, while abroad', with a quite different interpretation, there might he no trouble at all. Therefore, I concur with what has been said in another place by the Earl of Balfour, but I would ask the hon. Member to realise in this connection what it was that Lord Balfour said. He said:
What we want is not merely that all the great industrial Powers should ratify, but that all the great industrial Powers should ratify the same thing, knowing what that thing is. That is the really essential point. And, therefore, there are questions of consultation with other great in-
dustrial Powers as well as of consideration of the precise terms of our own legislation.
It was for that reason that we held the London Conference.

Viscountess ASTOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves Lord Balfour, may I say that Lord Balfour did say "I expect it will be ratified"?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let me, at any rate, correct myself then and say, quite definitely, that I hope that we may be able to ratify. If anyone says ratification with rapidity, then I say, from my point of view, that I want to define "rapidity," and I am quite clear that it is going to take some time. We had the meeting in London, and if I might ask the Noble Lady really to consider the difficulties and not sometimes to let her zeal outrun her discretion—

Viscountess ASTOR: I do not want to seem impatient, and I am a supporter of the Government. I know as well as the Government that there are great difficulties, but I also know that we have got a section in our party who do not want to ratify, and that is what makes me eager.

Mr. CLAYTON: Is there not also a section in the United States that does not want to ratify?

Viscountess ASTOR: I am not representing the United States. I represent Plymouth.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quite well aware of the section to which the Noble Lady refers, and I am going to deal with them before I have done, but I am dealing first with this type of criticism. The reason why we had the meeting in London was to try and get some of these difficulties clarified, and agreement reached on them. We did, with regard to some of them. One of our objects, which we thought we had attained—I would say to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester—was to get an agreement reached as regards overtime which would enable the system of agreed working between employers and employed on the railways, in engineering works, and in such industries as ship repairing to be carried on without dislocation. I take it from my hon. Friend that they have doubts about it. I put it to the House, and to anyone who wants to get a practical
instrument, that while we thought we had got it by the London Agreement, yet there may be some doubt. We certainly have got to get it clear. When you go into a question of this kind, that covers all the industries in this country, the moment you dig into it you find how complicated it is.
1.0 p.m.
It is quite clear that one or two of the things that we thought we had got clear at the London Agreement do not seem now to be quite clear. Others have come up since. For instance, I have had the question of preparatory and complementary work put to me, as one that affects Lancashire and the cotton-spinning industry. I would ask the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who believes we could sign so quickly, whether he has himself analysed the question of intermittent work and what it means. Is road transport intermittent work, or is it not? It is no good saying, "Go ahead," unless you can answer questions of that kind and know what you want. Road transport is a question that has arisen since the London Conference. It is an industry whose development has largely taken place since the date of the Washington Convention, and we have to know how it is to be regarded. The Germans have precisely the same difficulty that we have, and they are considering it, and I am sure that they, too, find it difficult and puzzling. In the draft of their law, road transport is, I believe, regarded as intermittent work. Yet it is difficult to see how under the London Agreement it could be considered intermittent. The real trouble is this, and there is no attempt at camouflage on my part'. The Washington Convention itself is full of general terms which must be interpreted and made clear. There is no getting out of it. Hon. Members say that the Trade Disputes Bill contained. terms which were not clear and which wanted definition, and yet they are willing to take the Washington Convention and swallow it. They are straining at a gnat and swallowing several camels. I go further. If it is necessary to be clear in a piece of domestic legislation, it is doubly necessary to be clear when dealing with an international matter. Let me again quote from Lord Balfour's speech:
It is really most important that these treaties should not be ratified until it is quite
clear that they can be carried out clearly and to the letter. After ratification it is too late conveniently and properly to ask for changes, reforms, modifications of language, increased clarity of expression or any other of the Amendments which may seem small but when they become the subject of controversy have a most unhappy habit of turning out to be of great importance and great causes of embitterment in international relations.
I now come to the question of the undertaking by the French Government to ratify, and I ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) whether he can give me an answer to this question. Would he and his friends be willing for us to ratify following on the French model? I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman to say whether he would be willing for us to ratify if we followed the French legislative and administrative model.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not expect me to speak for the French Government. I want him to answer this question. Surely I cannot be expected to answer as to the French Government.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let me put it to him quite straight. I never asked him to reply for the French Government. It is not the business of any of us either to reply for Or to criticise the French Government. I have no wish to do that, and I want to make this quite plain. I would never claim to criticise the Government of a country for what they do internally, since we know that they have their methods of legislation and administration, while we hitherto have proceeded on different lines. What I ask is whether the hon. Gentleman as a British Member representing the British Opposition would be content if we in this matter were to follow not our own pre-existing habits but to legislate and administer on the model taken by the French Government?

Mr. DAVIES: I will reply to that in this way. The right hon. Gentleman has already met the French and other Governments in order to get an interpretation of the Convention, and. Lord Balfour has already stated that the object and policy of the Government—and I want to pin the right hon. Gentleman down to this point—was to proceed with
the necessary legislation and then with the policy of ratification.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The object and policy of the Government is as Lord Balfour stated, but, as he stated, it is also to get over the difficulties first. It is interesting to note how the hon. Member has for the second time deliberately and completely evaded answering my question. The House can form its own judgment on the evasion. Let me now show the House and the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) what are the real difficulties. Take the question of interieittent work on which we thought we had got agreement at the London Conference. I find under the French Railway Law this regulation, passed under their Eight Hours Law:

"(1) The duration of work is based on 2,504 hours of work per annum (Ka days), either eight hours a day or an average of eight hours a day spread over a period of not more than 10 consecutive days. Thus time lost and holidays may he made up.
(2) A distinction is made between the periods of actual work and iperiods of attendance. Employés may be required to be in attendance for 12 hours, which count as eight hours' work. Periods in which no actual work is done count as 25 per cent. actual work. The number of hours on duty of pointsmen may be increased to 12 a day when less than four trains are signalled per hour. The hours of duty may be increased beyond eight hours by a period equal to three-quarters of the time not occupied in actual work up to a maximum of 12 hours."

That is an interpretation which they are perfectly entitled to make as long as there is no international agreement to the contrary. I do not venture to criticise it, but it is not an interpretation which could possibly be put on the Convention in this country. Someone may say, "Yes, but would not that be altered under the Convention?" I can only quote the French Minister of Labour:
A speaker asked me, 'If the Convention is ratified, will you modify your law in a manner which makes it more onerous for the national economy?' I hasten to reply to him that it is by no means our intention to make such a proposal to Parliament. On the contrary, it is not in our mind to ask Parliament to make any modification in the law likely to alter its principle.
Further, the Rapporteur, the Chairman of the Committee, on 20th May of this year, in dealing with the law and reply-
ing to an interpellation when someone said to him, "Supposing only two trains passed per day, would you still require only eight hours of actual presence?" gave this answer. I will give the French first and the translation afterwards:
L'application de la loi de huit heures dans les chemins de fer se fait avec une amplitude telle que certain agents dans certain eas, font des journées allant jusqua'à quatorze heures. S'il est une gare où il ne passe que deux trains par jour et où cependant la journée de huit heures soit strictement appliquée, je vous prie de me l'indiquer.
I translate that as follows:
The eight hours law is applied to railways with such latitude that some employés work up to 14 hours a day; if there is a station through which only two trains pass per day and where, nevertheless, the day is strictly limited to eight hours, I should be glad if lie would name it to me.
As I say, that is one of a number of instances. I want again to disclaim any intention to criticise the domestic policy of any other country, but, on the other hand, when an international Convention is in question, we must be sure that we do interpret similarly. When you get a law which deals generally with hours regulation, and which is administered by a number of countries, it is the method of interpretation that matters. I asked the hon. Member opposite whether he would be ready for ratification if we were to follow the French model, and I think it is now perfectly clear why I could obtain no affirmative answer. The interpretation is the trouble or one of the troubles. Obviously, we must get the matter clear.
Now let me turn to the other side. As I said, there are on the one side those who want us to go ahead quickly without really facing the difficulties, and there are others who would like us to consider the matter for ever and to do nothing. I have this pamphlet which has been given me. I have only just recently received it like other Members. I think we may assume that those responsible for it do not desire to see the Convention ratified at all. I look at page 6 of this pamphlet—and I am now dealing with those who do not want ratification at all—and I see that nearly 93 per cent. of the people in this country already work 48 hours or less, and the remaining
7 per cent. include a number of men employed on continuous processes which are specially dealt with. So that the proportion of people not working 48 hours in this country is stated to be really quite small. Then, when I come to the next page, I see it says that:
The crux of the question, therefore, is why Great Britain—which was the pioneer of the principle of the 48 hours week—whose employers have throughout the past eight years demonstrated their loyal adherence to it, and whose employers have no desire or intention to depart from it, should refuse to ratify a Convention which was to have been drafted to give effect to that principle.
I quite agree, that is the crux of the question. But when I get a statement of that kind it seems to me that provided we can get these other questions cleared up such as the hon. Member (Mr. Fielden) has put—and I quite agree they have got to be considered, and that it is vital that we should get them cleared up—it is, candidly, going to take some time to clear them up—but when I find the broad statement of those two facts in the pamphlet, I am entitled to assume that the people who are responsible for it ought to accept the principle of the Convention and be the first to try to make the Convention clear. Our difficulties are great because what we have to look at is that our method is to legislate in a comprehensive way and not, like other Powers, in a general way. We have got to go into the question of the different industries first of all. We have got to meet a ease such as that of the crucible iron workers who are on piecework and the tailors who also work on piecework, where there is no question of hours at all. Let those who issued the pamphlet help us to deal with this question and then we may get the difficulty cleared up, if they will look at the problem again and see how far the difficulties are met by the London Agreement or where they do not appear to be met by that Agreement, see whether some other agreement could be designed which would make the Convention quite clear, and interpret what is obscure.
It is clear that we have got critics on both sides, neither of whom are, in fact, helpful in a most extraordinarily difficult piece of work. It has got to be made a shipshape piece of work before it can be actually carried into effect with safety to British interests. What I may call
merely general exhortations do not help, and objections which are also general do not, help either. I would say, therefore, if anyone asks me whether we can go straight ahead and hope to ratify quickly, this week or next week or this month or next month, I say it does not seem to me it is conceivably within the range of practical considerations.
For that reason, I say on the one hand as far as I am concerned, I do not propose that the Government should be stampeded when we do not think it is for the good of the country. On the other hand if there are difficulties to be surmounted—and there clearly are—let those who are concerned with those difficulties help us to see whether they are insuperable and whether they cannot be got out of the way.

Mr. C. WILSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is being done in the way of negotiation with people abroad and at home?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am trying to get a statement of what are the industries in which the real difficulty is felt. One or two have been given to me, such as crucible iron, where the employés do not work to any hours at all. In other industries they are given piecework only. They come when they like and go when they like. It seems that, while we thought we had made it all plain in the London agreement, it is not plain. We have got to see whether we can get the other countries to take the same line. I am bound to say that this is the most difficult and complicated piece of work upon which I have ever been engaged.

IMPERIAL AFFAIRS (DEBATE).

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I want to call the attention of the House to what I believe to be a matter of very grave concern to a large number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and in regard to which I hope I may be able to evoke a certain amount of sympathy even from right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, in view of the fact that the present disposition and allocation of parties in this House may not necessarily be permanent. That matter is the anomaly of the present allocation of the time of this House to different subjects
of grave national concern, and the time which is allotted to the several parties represented in this House. I am more directly moved to bring this question to the attention of the House by reason of the entirely inadequate time and attention which this House is able, or perhaps inclined, to devote to questions which are of as great concern both to the whole Commonwealth of nations of which Great Britain is still the centre, and to the dependant Empire of which Great Britain is still the head. I want more particularly to refer to a very important document—I am not going to refer to it in detail, for reasons which I shall explain in a moment—which was issued as a Report from the Imperial Conference which assembled in London in November last. Everyone is aware that matters of the very greatest importance were discussed at that Conference, and that matters of grave consequence were also discussed at the Colonial Conference which came to an end only two days ago.
There was a Report on what are known as Inter-Imperial Relations issued from the Imperial Conference, which I do not hesitate to describe as the most important single document in the history of our Colonial Empire since Lord Durham penned—if he did pen—the famous Report on Canada in the year 1839. I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of what is commonly known as the Balfour Report, and, if I were inclined to do so, I should feel myself excluded by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions is unfortunately unable to be present this afternoon. I recognise the reasons for his absence, which he very courteously explained to me, and, in his absence, I think it would not be appropriate that I should go into the merits of the Report to which I have referred. What I wish to refer to is a matter of a. rather more general character; I mean the lack of opportunity possessed by Members of this House for the discussion of questions in which they, or a large section of them, may be supremely interested. I put on the Notice Paper of this House a Motion to the effect that, in our opinion, it is desirable that this House should have an early opportunity of considering the declarations and recommendations contained in the Report of the proceedings of the Imperial Con-
ference of 1926. I would have preferred to have phrased that Motion a little more precisely, and to have said that it was not desirable that this House should be deemed tacitly to have acquiesced in the declarations and recommendations of that Conference. That is a matter which has been elsewhere debated, but I quite recognise that, at any rate in this country, without some further explanation the words which I have just quoted might lend themselves to misconstruction and even to misrepresentation.
I observe that, in some quarters, it has been not merely tacitly assumed, but explicitly asserted that, since last November, there has taken place a full abandonment by the British Government of any claim to control or superior authority. Whether that full abandonment has, as a 'matter of fact, taken place or not, I have no means of knowing, but I would very respectfully ask, if we are to have any reply from the Government, when this abandonment took place, and who presumed to abandon this claim to which reference has been made. Above all, I would ask whether an act of such supreme importance to this country and to the Empire as a whole is to take place without the assent or even without the knowledge of this Imperial Parliament. I suggest that, if that were so, this House would be placed in a gravely false position. I do not want to enter upon the merits of the policy at all. All that I ask is that, by silence on. matters of such grave constitutional importance, this House may not be assumed to have acquiesced in the policy of which it has not been formerly informed. I observe that very pertinent questions, as they seem to me, are being asked in another place. It has been asked, "What is to be the notice to the various overseas Dominions that the Parliament of Great Britain has accepted the proposals of the Imperial Conference as binding? How are the Dominions to know when the proposals come into force unless some special action is taken by the Parliament of Great Britain and by the Parliaments of the overseas Dominions?" These questions seem to me to be very appropriate, pertinent, and indeed inevitable questions to be addressed to the respective Governments, and I would venture to address them very respectfully to the Government of His Majesty.
I am not on this occasion going into the merits. I refer to these matters, I refer even to the Balfour Note on inter-Imperial relations, merely in order to illustrate the grievance, which I think is widely and which, I know, is deeply felt, among hon. Members on this side of the House. About a week ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether this House was to have any opportunity of discussing the Report to which I have referred, and the Prime Minister replied, courteous as ever, to the effect that an opportunity might be obtained on one of the days devoted to Supply, or on some other occasion. The House knows perfectly well that topics for discussion on the 20 days devoted to Supply are selected, not by hon. Members on this side of the House, but by hon. Members on the other side. I am not complaining; I am merely stating the fact which is known to hon. Members in all parts of the House. It is also known that, by a convention—all these matters are nothing more than convention—out of the 20 days allotted to Supply, seven days are controlled by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the two top benches below the Gangway opposite. Forty Members who sit sometimes on these two benches control seven of these days, and the rest are controlled by the 150 or 160 Members who sit above the Gangway on the other side. I am not concerned with that allocation, but what concerns me is that the 400 hon. Members who are supporters of the Government do not control a single Supply day.
I am not without hope that, before this portion of the Session ends, before August, if it does end then, by the courtesy of the leaders of one or other of the two Opposition parties, we may obtain a day, or part of a day, for the discussion of this very important subject I would remind the House in that connection that, about a year ago, the Colonial Office, as it was formerly named, was bifurcates into two distinct departments, the Dominion Office and the Colonial Office, and I had an impression that one of the reasons for the bifurcation was that it might afford a double opportunity for debates on matters of Imperial concern. I would, however, remind the House that up to now it has had no such result, and I submit that the existing convention by which these days are allotted does effectually prevent the large
majority of Members of this House from discussing a matter which to them seems to be of supreme national or Imperial importance.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I rise to support very strongly the views which have been put before the House by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I think the hon. Gentleman has expressed the view which is very generally felt by all Members of the Conservative party, and, indeed, by the Members of other parties, that it is extremely unfortunate that there has been no opportunity since the Imperial Conference for this House to debate the general principles which were there discussed, and the very important decisions which were come to at that Conference only a few months ago. Today I do not want to enter into the details of those proposals or the very important effects which follow from them in regard to the relations between ourselves, the Dominions and the Colonies. When it is realised throughout the Empire what took place at the Imperial Conference, and when we remember that the results of it have been freely discussed in almost all Parliaments with one exception since the return of the various delegates to their own parts of the Empire, it is extremely unfortunate that in the Mother of Parliaments no discussion whatever has taken place on the decisions of the Imperial Conference.
The subjects discussed at that Conference included not only such very important matters as those connected with inter-Imperial relations but also questions of emigration, Empire defence, and indeed other important matters such as the reference to the Privy Council, a matter which is very strongly felt in various parts of the Dominions, and a question upon which it is felt to be necessary that some decision should be taken before very long. There is a feeling in some parts of the Empire that it would be fatal if the opportunity which exists at the present moment to refer questions to the Privy Council should pass away. I know there are other branches of the legislature abroad which hold the view that the conditions which will prevail in certain Dominions in the future and their status demand that their judicial functions should be complete within their own borders. In all these matters, and particularly in the extraordinary important
matters of preferential trade, emigration and inter-Imperial relations, this House has had no opportunity of saying a single word. I very strongly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). Up to the present we have had no opportunity to raise this matter except on the Motion for the Adjournment, and I ask the Government whether there is anything they can do in consultation with the different sections of the House to give us an opportunity of adequately discussing this important question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the rule that members of the Opposition should have an opportunity of expressing their views before the representative of the Government replies?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): May I suggest that it will not be necessary to raise this point of Order, because I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. STEPHEN: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member opposite in regard to what he has said about the time allotted for the discussion of particular matters in this House, and the need for some alteration in regard to the arrangements. In the case he has raised, however, I do not think there is really any point in his request for a discussion of Imperial Conference questions. We think that the whole matter could be settled by giving Scotland Home Rule, and then we should have an opportunity of managing our own affairs, and there would be more time available in this House for the discussion of other subjects. I think it is necessary, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies, to deal further with the question of the Supply days. I wonder if hon. Members who have raised this question understand that what they are really doing is censuring their own Government. If they have not confidence in the administration of the Government in connection with various Departments, they could easily put down a Vote of Censure on the Government in that connection. I think it is preposterous, and a most extraordinary proceeding for hon. Members opposite to complain in this way
that they are not getting an opportunity to discuss particular Votes in Supply. I want to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there has been very little opportunity for the Members of the Opposition to discuss matters connected with Supply, and the reason for this is to be found in the fact that the Government have introduced so much panic legislation, and have taken up so much time with the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill that we are not getting the proper number of Supply days. There are ever so many matters of grave domestic concern that we have not yet had an opportunity of discussing.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: We are bound to get the 20 allotted days.

Mr. STEPHEN: I know we are bound to get the 20 allotted days, but they are to come on later in the Session, and I am now dealing with the statement of the hon. Member for York that there has not been an opportunity for discussing the Imperial Conference decisions in this House, although they have been discussed in the Dominion Parliaments. The reason for that may be due to the fact that the Government have been mopping up the Supply Days by their legislation, and Supply will have to be taken at a later period of the Session. I believe there are other matters of far more importance than that which now seem to be agitating the ultra-Conservative minds in this House as to whether the Home Parliament should have some sort of control over the Dominion Parliaments. Those ultra-Conservative minds seem to be greatly concerned about something being done to provide opportunities to discuss Imperial matters. I think there will be an opportunity of discussing on Supply Days matters of very much more importance to the working classes, and we should then have opportunities of criticising the Government for the way in which they have failed to do anything to abolish the poverty and misery which are the lot of so many millions of the people of this country to-day.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I think the subject which has been raised by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is one of some importance. I would like to say in this connection that in the
official position I hold in my party we are always willing to meet the wishes of hon. Members, and if I had been approached and asked to assist in giving ad opportunity for the discussion of this question by any hon. Member opposite, I am sure the official members of my party could have been useful in putting down subjects on Supply Days which are interesting not only to ourselves but to the whole House. We are only too glad to get hon. Members interested, and if the hon. Member for York and his friends will approach me, I will do all I can to get my party to afford the necessary facilities for such a discussion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This Debate looks as if it were finding its way to a happy and immediate conclusion. As regards the special claim which has been put forward for a discussion of questions raised at the Imperial Conference, it follows that we shall have some opportunities through the usual channels and, perhaps, through the unusual channel to which the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir H. Hutchison) has alluded, of achieving the entirely desirable and legitimate purpose of having an opportunity provided for discussing the very memorable and historic decisions which were arrived at in the Imperial Conference. The reason why they have not been discussed before is principally because there has been such a very general measure of agreement amongst all parties in regard to what was done, and the belief that this will conduce to the strength and harmony of the British Empire as a whole. That is why there has been no challenging current of opinion to set in motion what I would call the heavy machinery of the House of Commons so as to provide the necessary opportunities for a Debate.
Nevertheless, I agree with my bon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) that, although these matters may be dealt with by agreement, perhaps it may be misunderstood in other parts of the Empire if we pass these questions sub silentio, and it might be thought that we do not consider these matters are so important, whereas, as a. matter of fact, it is because of their importance that they have not actually been discussed up to the present time. Therefore, I welcome very much the helpful suggestion of the Liberal Whip that consultations may
take place in regard to this particular matter between the official representatives of parties, and I hope the result will be that an opportunity will be given for what, I am sure, will be a very valuable and deeply interesting Debate.
With regard to what has been said about the practice adopted in regard to discussions of Supply Votes, those who look back to the period before the Supply Rule will realise what an enormous improvement has taken place in our Parliamentary affairs. I came into the House some years after the change had been made, and it was a commonplace amongst leading speakers in all quarters of the House—I am speaking of a quarter of a century ago—to admit that there had been an immense improvement in the conduct of our business, in the dignity, efficiency and celerity which had been achieved by the substitution of the new Supply Rule with its allotted 20 days and extra days in certain circumstances, instead of the altogether chaotic and disorganised manner in which the immense bulk of Supply had been previously dealt with by the House of Commons, when vast sums of money were passed without being properly discussed, and had to be rushed through in the course of a single evening. But if we admire the Supply Rule, and if we adhere to the views that were expressed in the years immediately after its inception, that it was a great improvement in our Parliamentary procedure, it is perhaps worth while looking back to what was said at its inception in 1896 by the then Leader of the House, who still occupies a high and important position in His Majesty s Government. Lord Balfour used these words:
My idea is that with a time limit of 20 days, or whatever period the House fixes, it should be left to the Whips of the two sides, and mainly, let me say, to the Whips of the Opposition, to determine the order in which the Votes should be taken. I would put the suggestion even more strongly and say let it be left entirely to the Opposition Whips, if there were not such questions as the Army and Navy on which hon. Members on this side would desire some opportunity of speaking, while perhaps there is not the same desire for Debate on the other side.
Lord Balfour contemplated that the main control of the topics to be discussed should naturally rest with the opponents of the Government and with the minority in Parliament, because it is the minority that is discontented and they ought
to have the opportunity of raising grievances. But it was also clearly contemplated by Lord Balfour when he devised this rule that some proportion of the 20 days should be allocated in accordance with the wishes of the supporters of the Government, who might find that the selection by the Opposition of particular topics for discussion left whole spheres of important matters entirely unprovided for. That, I think, is a very interesting fact. I am certainly not going to suggest that a change should be made, but I think it is a matter that should be considered, because the discussion of Supply ought to be fairly representative of the whole sphere of our affairs and not be unduly confined to any special class of matters. Suppose for instance, we will say, taking an extreme, remote instance, hon. Members opposite were in power with a majority as large as ours and the representatives of some part of Scotland were not entirely satisfied with the policy of the Government, and thought it was really far too moderate and wished to enforce upon them vigorous action in regard to dealing with questions of poverty and unemployment generally, and on the other hand a Conservative Opposition differing from those gentlemen, having the sole right of prescribing what should be discussed on Supply, continually discussed Imperial topics connected with the Army and the Navy and matters which entirely excluded hon. Members opposite from their special opportunity, I think that would be a grievance. I hope the intended action by the Liberal party may have the effect of rendering the consideration of these topics a little less urgent than it seems to be at present. For the rest, if we really found that whole blocks of important matters could never be brought forward, it might be necessary to consider whether a certain number of days could not be relegated to the control of the Government and not the whole distribution confined to the Opposition. However, I am certainly not in n position to suggest that any action should be taken in the matter, because actually it is one that requires most careful consideration.

INDIA.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman may be quite assured that any proposal to interfere with the present arrangement would receive unqualified
opposition from this side. I never have thought the House of Commons was the sort of institution, with its present rules and organisation, to give full and adequate discussion to all the questions connected with the British Empire, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has not cleared up the essential point of the hon. Gentleman's contention. That is proved by the fact that on this afternoon one has to take the opportunity of raising questions connected with a population of over 300,000,000 people. It is very unfortunate that the House of Commons should have any say in the matter as to how the people of India should be governed, or how the administration of the law should be carried out in that country. Speaking for myself, I visualise the time when the British Commonwealth of Nations will consist of nations who are within that Commonwealth of their own free-will, and within their own sphere and their own nationality have absolute control of their own affairs and the only authority outside that should be an authority representative of those Dominions, to whom should be entrusted all those questions the hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be discussed to-day. I do not think the present arrangement is possible of continuation, and sooner or later there must be an Imperial, or, as I prefer to call it, a Commonwealth Senate, and this House will have no more right to interfere with its decisions than any other of its constituent parts. But that is a long way off, I have no doubt. I only wanted to say that, because I feel that that is a subject this House ought to discuss. It is no new view of mine, because during the discussions on the Home Rule Bill I tried, in a feeble sort of way, to put it forward as an alternative to the proposals that were then being discussed for only one part of the British Dominions.
I want to call attention to two or three matters about which I and others have been putting questions. With regard to the people who have been turned out of restaurants and other places in Edinburgh, I think the Noble Lord ought to look upon himself as the guardian of the interests of all Indians resident in this country, and although he has no power himself, and his Noble Chief has no power, and although it is true perhaps that the Government have no actual
power to interfere with the restaurant proprietors of Edinburgh, still I think, following the example of the French Colonial Minister under similar conditons, the Noble Lord and his Chief could let it be known that the sort of conduct which has caused so much resentment amongst the Indians attending the Universities in Scotland, that sort of discrimination, that putting up of the colour bar was something that could not be tolerated in the British Isles. It could not be settled without some legislation, because the Indians in India have to submit to some differentiation when travelling and otherwise which those of us who have taken any trouble to read and try to understand these questions know is very bitterly resented, and if when they come to this country the same kind of colour bar is going to be set up, you will only create still more discontent and hatred of British rule than exists at present.
2.0 p.m.
May I say a word or two on a subject on which I have been asking questions for some weeks past in references to disturbances at Kalakati? There was a very terrible slaughter there because, as we are informed, the authorities were afraid the police might be overcome, and between the Noble Lord and myself there has been a long and rather argumentative controversy across the Floor as to whether the crowd was armed or not. I have taken a good deal of trouble to try to get at the facts and I am assured that the crowd was not armed except to this extent. It is the custom to walk about with rather long walking sticks, and those are the only arms they have ever been charged with carrying. This crowd of people was fired at at short range. About that there is no dispute, and the information we have is that it was fired on without any Riot Act being read or anything of the kind. The authorities on the spot have appointed someone to investigate. They have appointed one of the chiefs, as I understand it, of the. officer who ordered the firing. We on this side of the House—and I want the Noble Lord to take note of this—do not consider that that is a proper form of inquiry. We do not think that in this country, if a magistrate, say, in the Metropolis, had acted in this fashion, public opinion in London would have been satisfied if the Chief Magis-
trate of London had been appointed to investigate the doings of one of his colleagues. Although I understand the report of this officer is on its way, and that it has not been published because some legal proceedings are threatened, I want to give the Noble Lord clear notice that what we are asking for, and what we shall try to insist upon, is that an absolutely impartial inquiry shall be made into all the circumstances connected with these shootings. We demand that, because we are of opinion that whenever this sort of thing takes place: in India—and it takes place with lamentable frequency—impartial people having no connection whatever with the people who may be resporsible and into whose conduct an inquiry is to be made, should at the very earliest moment hold an absolutely independent investigation. I have been informed that the magistrate who was appointed to investigate the conduct of the official—another magistrate—who was in command, as it were, when the shootings took place, was one of those in authority over him. I want to ask the Noble Lord this afternoon whether he will not represent to his chief that an absolutely impartial tribunal shall be set up. We all know perfectly well the sort of feelings that the Indian people have exhibited over and over again in connection with this kind of incident.
I want to take the other case, which, I think, is an even stronger case for some action on the part of both the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy. I hope the Noble Lord will not, in the case of the Bengal Ordinance, ride off with the statement that Lord Olivier sanctioned it and that, therefore, the Opposition is as much responsible as the present administration. It is a little more than 2½ years ago since the Ordinance was brought into existence, and it is over 2½ years since the town clerk of Calcutta, whose ease I first want to mention, was put into prison. I cannot believe that any Viceroy representing a Labour Government or any Secretary of State for India representing a Labour Government would consider that he was worthily carrying out the policy which a Labour Government would want carried out in India by continuing such exceptionally coercive measures as the Bengal Ordinance. It is even asked, what else
could be done? But before I say anything about that, I should like the House to understand who this man is and with what, as far as we can gather, he has been charged. He was the chief executive officer, and still is, of the Calcutta Corporation. The Calcutta Corporation is not a body representing a small town or a small number of people, but is, as everyone knows, a body representing one of the most important cities in India. All through his imprisonment, for 2½ years, he has retained the confidence of that municipality. I do not think the Noble Lord, or anyone representing the India Office, would charge that corporation, all of them, or even a majority of them, with being persons who are in favour of violent revolution or, with what is called at times, Communist revolution. Mr. Bose was arrested under the Bengal Criminal, Ordinance. He was imprisoned without a trial. In 1926 he was a candidate for the Provincial Council, and although the Bengal Government refused to allow him to send a draft of his election address to his brother for publication, he was returned as a member of the Bengal Council by a huge majority.
On the 28th January the Calcutta Corporation passed a resolution unanimously protesting against the continued imprisonment of Mr. Bose in view of the alarming condition of his health. Nothing happened, and a medical examination was made of him in Rangoon Prison in February by Lieut.- Colonel Kelsall, Chief Medical Officer of the Burma Government, and Dr. Sunil Bose. Their report was submitted on the 14th February. They considered that Mr. Bose was in an early stage of tuberculosis, and said he should lie placed under the best conditions as regards climate, food, rest, etc., to combat this disease. They concluded:
We do not regard the conditions during confinement in gaol as conducive to the restoration of Mr. Bose's health.
I want to point out to the House that with regard to a man suffering as this man has suffered, two and a half years' imprisonment, without trial, without ever being brought to trial, the greatest crime,, as it were, that you can commit against him is not to put him on his trial. The one thing that requires to be removed is the mental agony of being kept in prison under these conditions. I do not wonder that the doctors certified
that he was in the first stage of tuberculosis. I can assure the House that when you are in prison for political offences there is only one thing that irritates and oppresses you and wears you out, and that is the feeling of downright injustice under which you consider you are labouring in being there. I myself have experienced that for a few weeks after a trial, but this man has experienced it for two and a half years without any trial.
It is perfectly true, that after that Report the Government of India—I suppose the Governor-General and the Viceroy—made an offer to Mr. Bose that he could, under certain conditions, be removed. The conditions were, that he should go away and give an undertaking that he would not go near certain places. He was to be allowed to come to Europe and so on, but not to go back to India until the Indian Government allowed him to go back on the repeal, I suppose, of the Bengal Ordinance. He wrote to his brother and referred to the offer in detail. I will not read the whole of his letter—the Noble Lord has seen it, I am sure—which was published in the Calcutta "Forward" on the 19th April of this year. My point in reading this to the House is, that I want hon. Members to try to visualise the kind of man that we kept in prison without a trial. This is what he says in an introduction:
I have pondered over every sentence. The offer lacks human element; it is unjust, it is unacceptable. I have not been able to persuade myself that a permanent exile from the land of my birth would be better than life in a gaol leading to the sepulchre.
He goes on to say:
When I read that I was required to undertake not to return to India, Burma and Ceylon I rubbed and rubbed my eyes and asked myself, Am I so dangerous to the existence of the British rule in India that a deportation from Bengal is not regarded as an adequate safeguard or is all this but a hoax?' If the former, then from one point of view"—
and I call the attention of the House to this—
it is somewhat flattering to a nationalist to be told that he is so much of a nuisance to the bureaucracy. But when I come to look at facts and analyse my life and activities before I was arrested, I cannot help feeling that my political complexion is not so red as some interested and malicious
people have led Government to think. I have not done political work outside Bengal and I have hardly any desire to do so, at least for some years to come—for Bengal is big enough for me and for my ambitions. I do not think that any other Government (whether the Government of India or any provincial Government) besides Bengal has anything to say against me, and so far as I remember, I do not think I left Bengal during the last six years. Why then this attempt to prejudice me in the eyes of other Governments by holding me up as a dangerous person and prohibiting me from entering India, Burma and Ceylon? Ceylon being a Crown Colony"—
He enters into an argument as to whether they could keep him out of Ceylon, but I need not trouble the House with that. He goes on—
There is one aspect of the hon. Member's proposal which struck me as particularly callous.
That is the hon. Member who made the proposal in the Assembly as to the conditions under which he could go away.
The Government know that I have been away from home nearly 2½ years and I have not met most of my relatives—including parents—during this period. They nevertheless propose that I shall go abroad for a period which will be at least 2½ or three years without having an opportunity of meeting them."—
Then he goes on to say this, which is as important—
Government seem to have clean forgotten the suffering to which they have subjected me for the last 2½ years. I am the aggrieved party and not they. They have locked me in for such a long period without any justification. I was only told that I was guilty of being a member of a conspiracy for importing arms, manufacturing explosives and murdering police officers, and was asked if I had anything to say. I wonder if the late Sir Edward Marshall Hall or Sir John Simon could have put up any other defence beyond saying Not guilty'—and this is exactly what I did. When the 'allegations' were presented to me a second time, I raised the question myself as to why I, of all persons, happened to be victimised by the police—and I think I was able to give a satisfactory explanation.
That is all I need read of that. He goes on to say:
How long will Government go on ignoring all moral obligations? If Government had allowed me to go home once, before I sailed abroad, had agreed to meet all my expenses in Europe and had permitted me to return without let or hindrance on my recovery there would have been something human about the offer.
He concludes:
Thank God I am at peace with myself, and I can face with perfect equanimity any ordeal that He in His wisdom may choose to visit me with. I regard myself as doing penance in my own humble way for the past sins of our nation and I am, and shall be, happy in my atonement. Our thoughts will not die, our ideas will not fade from the nation's memory, and posterity will be the heirs of our fondest dreams. This is the faith which will sustain me in my tribulation for ever and for ever.
I cannot think that the man who wrote that document, which contains very much more than I have read, is the sort of man the British Empire ought to keep in prison under the conditions that he has been kept there. I cannot think that it is any answer to me for the Noble Lord to say that the man is now released. He is released because the Government dared not keep him in prison any longer for fear of his death. I want again to ask the Noble Lord to put on the Table of the House the Report of his own medical officers, who examined Mr. Bose before his release. The people of India and the people of this country who are responsible for this man being kept in prison have a right to know to what condition of health he had been reduced before the Government's hard heart had been moved to give the man his release. This is one of those cases, which will be remembered in India for all time, of downright persecution of a really good nationalist.
The Noble Lord may say to me, as he has always said to us when we take up cases of this kind, that we are not good patriots. I am as good a patriot as he is, or as anyone else in this House, but I disagree with the sort of policy which denies patriotism to other people. This man is a lover of his own country. He has probably agitated and probably organised and helped to educate his people in the doctrines of Home Rule and Nationalism. If he is as guilty as the Government have again and again said, they know him to be—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): And Lord Olivier!

Mr. LANSBURY: Lord Olivier acted on the information that was given to him at the particular moment. If Lord
Olivier were now Secretary of State for India and if for two and a half years he had kept this man in prison, I am quite certain that if mine was the only voice in the House I should protest against its being done. The unfortunate thing for me is that I am getting old. I lived during the whole period of the Irish business, and I have seen this sort of thing done in Ireland, and in the end, after terrible slaughter and after terrible upheaval, I have seen the Noble Lord, who was one of the leading opponents of Home Rule for Ireland, being forced into the position of giving to Ireland a very much larger form of self-government than that which they demanded at the moment. This particular juncture in India, when the people of India are being told that the promise made to them by Queen Victoria many years ago that the British connection was only a connection to enable them to get self-government, and when the Indian people are asking for that pledge to be fulfilled, is not the time to treat a decent, honest man in the way that this town clerk has been treated.
The Government have no right to keep a man in prison without trial, in any circumstances, for such a period as this. Whatever Lord Olivier may have done, or whatever anybody else may have done in signing the Bengal Ordinance, the fact remains that this man has been in. prison for 30 months, and at the end of that period, because the man is nearly dead, he is allowed to be released. I want the Noble Lord to give us the Report of the four doctors, so that the people here and the people in India may know the condition of Mr. Bose when he was released. When we talk about prisoners of this kind, it is regarded as a humorous matter by hon. Members opposite. That is the attitude of mind which they take up towards political prisoners; but there is one thing to remember, and that is that history proves that those who come after get what the prisoners went to prison to accomplish.
I want to call attention to the others who are in prison under the same conditions. I do riot think that any of us should keep our minds only on one man who happens to be an outstanding figure among those who are in prison. I wonder if the House realises, from the answers given to me by the Noble Lord,
what is the position. He gave an answer on the 9th May last that according to information given in reports on the 30th January and 21st February last there were 16 men in prison tinder one Regulation. Five had been removed and placed under restraint in villages under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Of the 61 detenus, 42 were in prison under the Bengal Ordinance. Four more had since been arrested and placed in prison. So this business of imprisoning people without trial or before a magistrate or a Judge and jury or anyone is still going on.

Earl ININTERTON: The hon. Member must not say that. Mr. Bose was tried.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is a very good way of getting out of it. He was tried in secret. Two Judges went into the prison and the man was taken before them, without any counsel or anyone knowing what he said or what anybody said to him. That is a pretty fine thing to call a trial. That used to be called an inquisition in the old days. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that. when I say these men are in prison without trial. I mean the sort of trial which the ordinary people outside call a trial.

Earl WINTERTON: That is not what I said. I was only correcting what was, unintentionally, a terminological inexactitude on the part of the hon. Member. He said the cases had not been considered. There is a distinction.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think there is a distinction. I do not consider that two Judges going into a prison and having a man brought before them, as Mr. Bose himself said he was brought, can be considered a trial. He says that they charged him with helping in the manufacture of explosives and taking part in conspiracies to murder officials and so on, but no evidence was called in the prison. No evidence was nut to Mr. Bose. He was not allowed to call any evidence, and for exactly the same reason that he is not put on trial. If Mr. Bose could be told who were the informants against him—[Interruption.] That is the sort of argument. which the Czars used to put up. It was the argument of Lord Balfour. I have heard Lord Balfour a score of times at the Treasury Box make the same statement about the
Irish prisoners who were detained under the Coercion Act. The Noble Lord agrees with me that the prisoners I am speaking about have had no ordinary trial such as ordinary prisoners ought to receive.
The Noble Lord also said in his reply that there were 105 men arrested under the Bengal Ordinance who were still tinder restraint but not actually in prison. In February last there were 163, and if we take the figures of the present time there appear to be 167. These men ought to be released. They ought not to be kept in prison until they are too sick and ill to be kept there any longer. The Noble Lord will not deny that the prisons in England are much better than the prisons in India and under much more humane conditions. He will not deny that, although he may tell us, as he told I he hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) once, of tile playground that they had and of the games they played. He will not tell us this afternoon that Mr. Bose lived under those conditions, and I am certain that a very large number of the other men do not live under those conditions. These men have on many occasions gone on hunger strike. Men do not go on hunger strike except from a firm sense of injustice.
I want to ask the Noble Lord and the Secretary of State for India and the India Office to consider whether the time has flat arrived to altogether with this method of dealing with the situation in India. In 1929, a Commission has to be appointed. Somehow we have to make the people of India believe that we really mean that then shall have self-government, that we really do mean that they shall be a Dominion in the sense that Australia is a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of nations. There is only one way of doing that. Although the late Government may be charged, through Lord Olivier, with having imposed the Bengal Ordinance, I would point out that they appointed a Committee, not a final Committee, to survey the situation and to lead up to the appointment of the Commission which, according to the Reform Act, is due in 1929. Over and over again the Legislative Assemblies and Council in India have passed Resolutions demanding that we should set up that Commission now or, rather, when those Resolutions were passed. I think I am speaking correctly
when I say that the last Resolution which has come through asks that if the Government feel it to be impossible to appoint the Commission right off, they should, at least, enter into a round table conference with all the parties, the moderates, the extremists, and the people representative of all parties in India for the purpose of trying to arrive at some means whereby the terms of reference of the Commission, or the corn-position of the Commission, that will inevitably be set up, might be agreed upon.
I am saying this because the Noble Lord will do what he always does; he will say: "What are we to do when people break the law? What are we to do when violence takes place?" remember, and hon. Members will remember, that John Bright once said, "Force is no remedy." That has been proved in regard to Ireland, and I am confident that it is going to be proved true in regard to those places over which the British flag flies, where discontent and violence come uppermost in the demand for reforms which are denied by the Government at home. I think I am speaking the opinions of the party which sits on these benches when I say that we are as anxious to maintain the British connection with India as anyone in this House, and we are convinced that it can only be maintained by treating the people of India as equals, and as having the right to be masters in their own country. We want to see this Committee, this round table conference, set up by the Government in order to show the people of India that we are in earnest and because we do not want the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India to continue saying to them that they must be very good children and must behave themselves. We want the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India to treat them as equals and as people whom we want to be free partners with us in rebuilding the world. This policy of coercion, of imprisoning people without trial, and excusing or apologising for our officials when they make mistakes, is the very worst kind of policy to bring about any settlement of the disagreements which exists between this country and the people of India.

Earl WI NTERTON: I certainly do not complain in any way of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) raising this question, and although I do not agree with any of the arguments he has used—in some cases he used exaggerated language—I say quite frankly that I consider it is a good thing that Indian questions should be raised in this House. Our Debates on Indian affairs are only too rare, and therefore I never complain when the hon. Member raises these matters from time to time, either in Debate or by means of questions. The hon. Member has referred to the somewhat delicate matter of the ban which has been placed by certain places of public entertainment in Edinburgh upon the entry of Asiatic and African persons. In regard to that I can only say that however much I regret circumstances, and I do most certainly regret them, they are not circumstances within the control of the Secretary of State for India or, indeed, as was made clear the other evening, within the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I cannot do any more than leave the matter where it was after the Debate on the Adjournment the other night. Personally, I was glad to hear the expressions of opinion from both sides of the House deprecating what had been done. I agree with most of the speeches made on that occasion, although I perhaps agree with the speech made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) less than with the speeches of the rest of his colleagues.
I turn from that to the main question raised by the hon. Member this afternoon. My first observation in reference to the question of the Bengal détenus and the special powers in operation there is that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State has never attempted to disguise the fact that these exceptional powers are in his opinion a regrettable necessity, but it is true to say that neither my Noble Friend nor the Government of India, nor any impartial observer of events in Bengal during the past few years, can regard them as other than necessary. The necessity for them has been abundantly proved. I must recall to the attention of the House once again—I can say very little fresh on this subject—the ascertainable facts—I use that phrase advisedly—on which these powers are
based. In the first place, in 1924, when they were first put into operation, there was and there had been for some time past an organised conspiracy in Bengal for the commission of revolutionary crime. The hon. Member spoke of one of these persons detained under these powers, Mr. Bose, as having been in prison for a political offence. I can assure him that no term could more incorrectly describe the offences for which that person has been detained. He is in prison for having broken the law in regard to revolutionary crime—

Mr. THURTLE: It was never proved against him.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Member at the moment. If he wishes to speak he can do so later on. The second fact which is ascertainable is that the Bengal Government and their police officers considered they were unable to guarantee law and order, and to prevent assassination on a widespread scale, unless they had powers to segregate persons who were responsible for organising and inciting this conspiracy. The segregation was two-fold. In the first place, it prevented them carrying out mischief which they would have undoubtedly carried out, with probably loss of life, and, in the second place, it prevented them from continuing to conspire together. The third ascertainable fact is that owing to the deep and noxious roots of this conspiracy the Bengal Government were convinced that if these men were tried by the ordinary processes of the law in open Court the lives of witnesses would be endangered, and the ends of justice defeated. Consequently, they took powers to arrest and confine, and control in certain other ways, the movements of any person reasonably believed to have. committed or preparing to commit or conspiring to commit any of certain scheduled offences under the existing penal code. This is subject to the scrutiny in each case of two Judges, who are to be satisfied that there is a lawful and sufficient cause for the arrest.
I have quoted almost the exact legal terms of the position in regard to them. I can only say, once again, that when I use the phrase "ascertainable facts" I mean that these facts were established
by the Government of Bengal in the first place, by the Government of India, and presumably were considered to have been established by Lord Olivier before he sanctioned the policy. I must say this. Unless the hon. Member, sitting as he does on the Front Opposition Bench, refuses to accept responsibility, which I think other members of his party do, for supporting the policy of the ex-Secretary of State for India in the Labour Government, I need say no more about the past. But I should like to be clear on that point, and I would gladly give way to the hon. Member if he desires to say anything. It was not clear from his speech whether he accepts the policy when it was put into operation by Lord Olivier. Up to now, hon. Members on the other side, including the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), have accepted the policy which Lord Olivier carried out as representing the policy of the Labour party.

Mr. LANSBURY: As so that I cannot say; but as the Noble Lord is anxious to know my own views, let me say that I should never support a policy of coercion. If I had the power I should not support a policy of coercion anywhere. I should apply remedial legislation to remove the grievances which appear to make coercion necessary.

Earl WINTERTON: I will not press the hon. Member any further. He has answered me courteously, but I gather that he differs from the majority of his party.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, I am not saying that. There was rower a vote on it.

Earl WINTERTON: So far as the representatives of his party in another place are concerned, besides Lord Olivier, Lord Haldane and other members of the Labour party expressed agreement with the policy because they were members of the Government at the time. But what about the present and the future? I am afraid I can tell the hon. Member very little more than I have already told him in my answers to questions. I can give him the most recent figures I have, for which he asks. There are now 46 in gaol. compared with 70 three months ago, and 11 are in gaol under Regulation 3, compared with 16 three months ago. In addition, 99 are
under restraint in villages or in their homes. I have spoken of the regrettable necessity for these special processes, and I have said that my Noble Friend the
Secretary of State has never concealed the fact that they are a regrettable necessity and, equally, that he was, and is, convinced that the powers are necessary. Let me paraphrase the, answer which I gave in reply to a question on 28th March of this year.
My answer contained a, copy of the statement made with the full authority of the Government of India and the sanction of the Secretary of State for India by Sir Alexander Muddiman in the Legislative Assembly on the 21st March.
He said:
The policy of the Government regarding those who have been detained under Regulation a, or the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, in connection with the Bengal revolutionary conspiracy, has been and still is that the detention of no man should last longer than is essential to the interests of the public safety. The Government are convinced that a terrorist conspiracy is in active existence and that consequently it is not possible to take steps in the direction of the release of those about whom there is no reasonable doubt that they would utilise their liberty to resume their previous activities.
He went on to say:
They are, however, anxious to pursue as quickly as possible the gradual release of individuals whose conduct gives reason for hoping that they will not abuse their liberty. The Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act provides for a considerable degree of elasticity in the treatment of those who are dealt with under it, and enables the Government to transfer from gaol to less strict forms of supervision persons whose past record and present conduct would not justify their unconditional release. Individuals of this class may be directed to reside in a particular village or in their own homes. The practical results of transferring men in this manner to village or home domicile are carefully watched, and tie Government are enabled to observe whether action taken is justified by events, and thus to determine the possibility of the further extension of such action.
Sir Alexander Muddiman then went on to give what had been done under the Act, and in conclusion said:
It must be understood that the practical results of this action, as exhibited in the conduct of the men thus placed in village or home domicile, require the constant attention of the Government. If it is ascertained that such men are reverting to terrorist conspiracy, the Government will not hesitate to deal with them again under their powers.
One other point before I come to the particular case of Mr. Bose. The hon. Member may be surprised to learn that there was a certain amount of general consideration put forward with which I was in agreement, and with which most Members of the House were in agreement. Nobody likes any form of extra judicial power if it can be avoided, and neither my Noble Friend the Secretary of State nor the Government of India are anxious to have these powers a day longer than is necessary. There is one important historical aspect, and it is this. I wish I could persuade the hon. Member of this fact. If I could I should go away for my Whitsuntide holiday very much happier. These men are not there for nothing. They are not there for political crimes, but because they are guilty, up to the hilt, of taking part in operations which no hon. Member of this House would condone for a moment and which nobody in this country, except perhaps a lunatic, would condone for a moment. They are there for a crime which takes the form of assassination. Of that I am quite convinced, but I am afraid I shall not be able to convince the hon. Member. Lord Olivier is convinced, the late Viceroy is convinced, the present Viceroy is convinced, Lord Lytton is convinced, and I have no doubt that my predecessor in this House as Tinder-Secretary was also convinced. I have seen in practically every case what these men have been charged with, and the history of their connection with a particular crime for which they have been incarcerated. It is quite true that they have not been tried in open Court, and I have already given the reason for that. Had they been tried in open Court it is quite certain that the lives of witnesses could not have been guaranteed and that a great many people would have been afraid to come forward for fear of being murdered.
Let me say a few words about the historical aspect of this case. This revolutionary crime in Bengal—it is confined to a comparatively small area in India and has disappeared almost from the rest of India—is no new thing in Bengal. It has existed for a great many years past. Sometimes it has boiled up and at other times it has gone down. Someone may say, "Is it not a fact that it
has boiled up most under coercive measures, and that it has been less active when you have treated the people in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like them to be treated?" As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. A number of people were interned during the war for taking part in revolutionary conspiracy, and in 1920 the then Viceroy, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Montagu, gave a general amnesty as a result of the passage of the Montagu-Chelmsford Act. So far from mending their ways, a number of them returned to their evil course—that of taking or attempting to take or threatening the lives of officials and private individuals. Several of the very people who were liberated in 1920 had to be reinterned in 1924. No impartial person looking at their record could fail to be quite certain that these people are revolutionary to their very bones.
The hon. Member spoke about Mr. Bose. Let me say at the outset that the fact that a man occupies an important position as the chief executive officer of the Calcutta Corporation does not determine that man's guilt or innocence. Whatever confidence the Calcutta Corporation might have in Mr. Bose, the members of that Corporation are not quite the reasonable and moderate people that the hon. Member suggested. I think he was paying them an extreme compliment in saying that they were moderate and reasonable, for they would be considered extreme even in some of the extremist districts in this country. The fact that they had confidence in Mr. Bose has really nothing whatever to do with the matter. Mr. Bose was imprisoned for having broken the law in regard to revolutionary crime. As to his release the circumstances are perfectly clear and there is no mystery about them. Mr. Bose's health was found to be unsatisfactory some time ago. While his health at that time was not such as, in the opinion of the Government, to justify his unconditional release, it was decided to make an offer by which he would be permitted to leave prison and reside under certain restraint for a certain period. Mr. Bose refused to accept that offer. I do not criticise him for doing so, for it was entirely his own affair. Consequently he was not released at that time.
Shortly afterwards, further investigation was made into the condition of his health, and it was found that he had not improved. I do not believe it is true to say that he is in a dying condition, but his health was not improving, and consequently the Government released him unconditionally. There is no mystery about it. They would have done exactly the same in the case of any other person, whether he occupied a high place or was lowly placed in private life. The Government would certainly not make any special arrangements because of the position which this gentleman occupies in private life. That is all there is about it. With regard to publishing the report of the doctor, I think it would be quite unusual. I have made some private inquiries in official circles in this country, and I understand that it would be quite unusual to publish the report of a medical officer when upon that report it has been decided to release any particular prisoner on the ground of his health. I do not know that even Mr. Bose would want the report published, but if he did I can see no reason for altering what is the usual procedure.
The next question I have to deal with relates to what happened at Kulakati. I am sorry to have to take up an uncompromising position, but I must refuse to agree to an independent inquiry, as I think it is wholly unnecessary. There was an inquiry into these matters by the Commissioner, the most important official in the district, and the report has been communicated to the Government of India. It is not intended to publish the report at present. Obviously, at the present time it would be quite improper to do so, because judicial proceedings are pending. What I will do is to recapitulate very shortly what occurred on this occasion. The events were very regrettable, undoubtedly, but my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, sees no reason in any way to doubt that the course which was taken by the authorities in the matter was the right course. What are the main facts of the case? This trouble arose, as so many other troubles do in India, not in the first instance from any action of the police, not from any coercive measures, but it arose from trouble between two rival bodies belonging to different religious communities. The Hindoos of the locality, on the
occasion of a religious festival on 2nd March, arranged to take a procession with song and music to a fair ground, where there is a Hindoo shrine that is the object of pilgrimages in the neighbourhood. It involved passing a Moslem prayer-house beside the road. The Moslems apparently objected to the procession passing their prayer-house, though it was not the time of morning or evening prayer, and they gathered in large numbers, led by a priest, to put their protest into action.
The Hindoo procession was halted some distance from the prayer-house, and attempts were made to reason with the excited crowd, many of whom carried, not "no arms of any kind," but sticks with iron ferrules. Anyone who has seen them, as I have seen them, knows that they are a very considerable weapon of defence. In addition to these sticks, they carried spears. I want the House to visualise the situation, which was one of the sort that the police are always having to deal with in India. The Indian police get little praise for their behaviour, but I am proud to say this on behalf of one of the most loyal and long-suffering bodies of men in the British Empire. Members of the Metropolitan Police are often commended for their conduct, but I would say, even in the presence of the Home Secretary, that the Indian police, on many occasions in India, show as much courage, discretion, tact and moderation as could be shown by the "A" Division of the Metropolitan Police in similar circumstances. These attempts to reason with the crowd, to get the people to cease from their provocative actions proved fruitless. As there seemed every likelihood of the small body of police available—there were 16 riflemen and two non-commissioned officers—being overwhelmed, the District Magistrate declared the assembly to be an unlawful one, and warned the crowd that unless they dispersed the police would fire.
On the prima facie evidence there is very little doubt that the district magistrate had to take drastic action to avoid the much greater loss of life that would have followed had the mobs got into conflict. Excited by the priest, who had been arrested by now, and by each other, the crowd yelled defiance, whereupon the district magistrate ordered one round each to be fired by the rifles. He believed
that if he did not do so his small force would be overwhelmed. Unfortunately in the din the order was misapprehended, and 37 rounds were fired by 14 rifles; 16 of the crowd were killed and 12 others wounded. I agree that it is to be regretted that this thing should have happened, but before anyone takes it upon himself to criticise the action of the police or the authorities he should await the result of the judicial proceedings which will probably follow. Until then I cannot say anything more.
The only other subject I want to mention is with regard to the Royal Commission. While the hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to put the question, I am equally entitled to say that I can really add nothing to what the Secretary of State has said in another place on more than one occasion and what I have repeated here on more than one occasion: and that is that it is impossible for me to make an announcement as to the date of the appointment or to add anything to what has already been said as to the conditions governing an acceleration of the date. I think the hon. Member said something about the composition of the Commission. As to that my Noble Friend would have regard to any views that might be expressed in any quarter of this House or in another place. He would consider those views when the time comes to make a submission to His Majesty as to the composition of the Commission, but until then it would be most unusual, and I think improper, to state in advance the names which are to be submitted to His Majesty.

EMPIRE TRADE.

3.0 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I make no apology for asking the House to turn to the vital question of the nation's trade. Although on an occasion like this there is always a thin House, I think it is rather an advantage to discuss this subject without going to a Division upon it and I wish to speak to any hon. Member who may disagree with my views, as man to man, and without any unnecessary political bias. The question of the adverse trade balance has not received the attention which it deserves during the last three or four months on account of the many other problems which we have had to discuss. In the first, quarter of 1925 the adverse balance was
£140,000,000, but in the same period of 1927 that adverse balance was 2155,060,000. A progressive adverse trade balance is something which should be considered immediately. In 1926 the adverse balance of trade for the whole year reached the very serious figure of £477,000,000, and in the past year there was actually a deficit, even allowing for invisible exports. In the first four months of this year, as I have shown, the adverse balance is far more serious and if the present rate continues throughout the year we may have to contemplate an adverse balance for the whole year of £620,000,000 with an actual deficit which may be a very serious figure.
That position is serious enough, but we have to consider also the striking change in the character of our trade in recent times. Everyone, whatever his economic beliefs, must be deeply concerned when we find that the imports of raw materials in the first quarter of this year as compared with 1925 have declined by £24,750,000, and when we realise that it is on our imports of raw material that our future production depends. While imports of raw materials decline to that great extent, our imports of manufactures during the same four months increased by £6,000,000 and turning to exports in the same period we find a very large decrease in manufactured exports compared with 1925—no less than £38,000,000. This is a question which must be put to the House and to the country. In addressing hon. Members upon it, I take no account of the particular schools of economic faith to which they may belong. This subject vitally affects everyone in the country and, in the long run, affects above everyone else the workers of the community. We cannot ignore these startling facts. We were told by leading bankers in January that we might hope for better times but whatever the prospect in international finance may he, if we study these figures we shall be most unwise in anticipating any great or immediate recovery. In fact the situation seems to be so serious as to warrant consideration by the House and the country.
We have been consoled for many years by some of those who hold fiscal beliefs differing from mine that we need not worry, because goods are paid for by
goods and it does not matter if you are importing a great value of goods and produce, because they must be paid for by other goods and produce. Recent trade returns show that contention to be progressively false or at any rate they prove that we must adopt a very Micawber-like attitude in order to see that arithmetical calculation brought to fulfilment. In recent years we find that while the majority of our imports are goods paid for by goods, yet an ever-increasing proportion is being paid for by invisible exports. The result is that to-day we are buying approximately £500,000,000 more of goods and produce than we are selling—truly an astounding figure from this country which led the world in production not so long ago. Even if we were still balancing our total account, which we did not do last year, no financial pundit is going to convince me that you can compensate for the loss of wage-producing exports by invisible exports which are not wage-producing. I am convinced that every party is anxious that we should not follow the course of Holland and become a nation of financiers, merchants and moneylenders and neglect our national production until it perishes. The destiny of this country will be settled in the next ten years on the field of economics and it will he decided whether we are to hold our own as one of the greatest if not the greatest industrial country in the world.
I hope it will not be imagined that I am asking for some unreasonable policy of total prohibiton such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) told us he would adopt. I believe that policy is supported by the majority of the Socialist party and although I admit it is better than a policy of drift, most of us in this party who are keen to see an alteration in the nation's fiscal system, do not believe the right hon. Gentleman's policy would be efficacious. It would maintain the which were dangers about we warned by those who say that if you eliminate all competition you will not in the long run help the country. What we ask for is a scientific extension of safeguarding which will give our industries at least an equal chance with their foreign competitors who are bearing nothing like the same amount of taxation, who are producing goods on a lower
wage basis, who are working longer hours and are frequently assisted by the exchange. I believe the true Free Trader desires to see equal conditions of trade. Those we have not got and I ask that we should at least have them. Why have we not taken action sooner? It is because we have had in this country a school of doctrinaires who have maintained that any form of Protection would restrict our total overseas trade. I challenge them to deny that our overseas trade, since we adopted the policy of free imports, has not progressed as rapidly as that of our great protected rivals. If that be correct the whole basis of their case falls to the ground and in view of the world facts before us I ask for a reconsideration of the whole position. The three great problems confronting us are first, how can we employ our people; second, how can we economise; and, third, how can we raise the additional revenue which is necessary if we are to advance and to relieve burdens in other directions without harming our people. In regard to the first, no one will deny that we are importing manufactured goods which if made in this country would give employment to the whole of our unemployed.

Mr. BATEY: You cannot give the miners employment.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not want to be deflected from my argument, but I may tell the hon. Member that in the Coal Commission Report it is distinctly laid down that the only hope of an increased consumption of coal in this country lies in a revival of the iron and steel trade. Is it not better to try to revive the iron and steel trade and in that way to help the miners? In regard to woollens and worsted materials, which are made in Yorkshire better than in any other country in the world, we are importing sufficient to absorb all the unemployed in the West Riding. Everybody knows how Lancashire products have been kept out of foreign markets and the difficulties which Lancashire trade is having to meet. There need be no unemployed in Lancashire if we would only insist that, instead of importing cotton goods into this home of cotton production the goods should be produced in Lancashire. No one who knows the hosiery trade will deny that we could employ all the out-of work hosiery hands in Nottingham and
Leicestershire—in the Bosworth Division—if we preserved our home markets for our own people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bosworth did not think so."] It is no use holding up a sock to the electors of Bosworth unless we show that we are determined to safeguard their industry. It is because they have been waiting for that, that they feel disgruntled, and I do not wonder at it. In regard to iron and steel there is nothing more deplorable than to see our steel workers, who are absolutely the finest in the world, waiting for work year after year while we are having increasing quantities of iron and steel imports coming into the country. We could absorb the whole of our unemployed steel workers if we had a national policy and were not prepared to sacrifice the workers on the altar of cheapness.
I will refer for a second to the question of agriculture, which I cannot go into at any length just now. I wonder whether hon. Members realise that the pig products and milk products we are importing would give employment to 150,000 men in agriculture if produced at home; and that is only a side issue of the industry as a whole. We ought to begin to think about these things and to look ahead, because no one can believe that, it is desirable to see our people leaving our agricultural districts at the present rate. We shall not improve the situation by creating a new hoard of officials and appointing committees. We have to get back to the principle that agriculture has a right to live in this country is it not a fact that there is no single country in the world which counts which does not promote an active system for the safeguarding of its industries The two latest entrants into economic freedom, India and the Free State of Ireland, have both adopted an extensive policy of safeguarding. It is not liked by some of those who were most anxious to give them self-Government, but there it is. I ask, further, whether any country which has ever adopted a full policy of safeguarding has ever abandoned it? These are facts which we cannot ignore. What other policy is there which holds the field Even the Socialist party are divided as to whether we are going to have "Socialism in our time"; I think it will be agreed that the majority of them are praying that it will not come in their time, or in any time whatever. I imagine,
though I do not know, that the Liberal party will tell us that their remedy is Free Trade. They are like a drug fiend who through that vice is rapidly approaching death but who, for the sake of one moment's further imagined happiness, calls for one final dose of that which inevitably will lead to death.
Every spokesman of the Government in recent times has told us they believe that the policy which I am advocating is the only one which can really solve the problem of unemployment. They have discovered a remedy, and I think the whole of our party are pleased, and I am not sure that many hon. Members of the party above the Gangway are not also pleased, in their silent and discreet moments, that the Government have given relief to certain industries. They have applied their remedy in small doses with great success; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is rather like a woman who is bashful on account of her great beauty, who is so modest that she hides away even though she knows she is a very good thing. What I and some of my hon. Friends cannot understand is why the Government, having proved the success of their policy, do not extend it to other industries, as far as they can do so within the terms of the pledge of the Prime Minister at the last General Election. Sometimes we wonder whether the Government are really whole-hearted in their views. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not whole-hearted about anything."] They are the best Government we ever had. The Socialist party say that our greatest problems are housing and unemployment. After all, under this Government we have built more houses than any other country has ever built; and we have done what the Socialists did not succeed in doing, we have got unemployment figures below a million.
Having proved that their policy is successful, why do not the Government go further with it? Some of us have wondered why it is that when economic discussions take place at Geneva all the representatives of the British Government happen to be gentlemen—I do not suppose they are sent there by the Government, and I do not know whether the Government have anything to do with their selection—who are either ardently
opposed to their economic policy or, at any rate, have only recently been converted to it. Are hon. Members content to see this country buying £500,000,000 worth more goods and produce than it is selling Cannot we retrieve the position? Even if we cannot go in for a large policy, cannot we at least do something for some of the industries which could be mentioned, so that we shall not have to say that our industries have perished because we were too late?

Mr. RAMSDEN: Those of us who believe that a safeguarding policy can be of great value to our trade and industry have followed with very great interest the fortunes of those few industries which have received the benefits of safeguarding. The only conclusion we can draw is that safeguarding has definitely been of great value to them. That is so not only so far as the home trade is concerned for it is only natural that if an import duty is imposed more goods will be manufactured in the country itself; but safeguarding has also helped in a direction which is equal important and that is in the export trade. I have been glad to learn from the figures given in the Trade and Navigation Returns that although there has been an unfortunate general reduction of the exports of manufactured goods, yet in those industries to which safeguarding has been applied, there has actually been an increase. And this in spite of the very difficult times through which we have been passing. I think this increase in the export of safeguarded goods is only the logical sequence to the imposition of a duty. Manufacturers have been able to increase their production and in that way to decrease the overhead costs per unit of production and consequently the prices. As one who knows something about the export trade, I can assure the House that the production of goods at a lower price is a very important factor when we are trying to sell goods abroad. To my mind the unfortunate thing is that so few industries have been brought under a Safeguarding of Industries Act. If the number of industries had been greater I am convinced that the number of our unemployed would have been materially lessened.
The difficulty lies in the steps that have to be taken by an industry in order to obtain the benefits of safeguarding. I realise that the bands of the Govern-
ment are tied as the outcome of the Election of 1923, when safeguarding was distinctly an issue and by the pledges made by the Prime Minister at the Election of 1924. Although we have carried out to the letter the pledge that there should be no protection, I do not think we have gone quite as far as was promised so far as safeguarding is concerned. If one studies the "Safeguarding of Industries (Procedure and Inquiries) Command Paper 237" we find that any industry which applies for safeguarding has to prove a considerable number of facts before the Board of Trade will order an inquiry into the state of the industry. I think the conditions laid down in that White Paper are much too cumbrous and make it far too difficult for an industry to obtain the benefit of safeguarding. In the first place, the importance of the industry has to be proved, and, amongst other things, it has to be shown that exceptional foreign competition adversely affects employment here. I do not wish to go through all the different factors which have to be taken into consideration, but even after an industry has managed to surmount the very difficult barrier set up by the Board of Trade it has to go before a committee and prove all those things all over again, and a considerable number of others in addition. The conditions are much too strict and severe an interpretation of the pledge at the 1924 Election.
To my mind there are two real tests which ought to be complied with before an industry can be safeguarded. The first question should be, "Would the imposition of a duty provide more employment in the industry?" and the second should be, "Could an import duty be applied without adversely affecting any other industry in the country?" If those were made the two essential tests, a considerably larger number of industries would be able to secure the advantages of safeguarding. I am sure there is a growing desire amongst the people in this country for some form of, shall we call it protection, against the large quantities of foreign goods that are imported annually and which take away the livelihood of our people' Coming into contact as I do with many different people in the West Biding of Yorkshire, I know that that view has grown considerably during
the last two or three years. Even trade unionists, although their view is not frequently represented in this House, feel that their occupation should not be taken away from them by the importation of goods which they could make. Looking through the monthly journal of the Amalamated Society of Woodworkers the other day I was interested to find that the Motherwell Branch had passed the following resolution:
That we strongly protest against the importation of doors and manufactured joinery as being against the best interests of the members on our hooks. These doors and finished joinery are allowed into this country at prices which cat, only have been produced by sweated labour and non-union rates in the country of origin and we pledge ourselves to resist to the utmost the attempts of the E.C.
That is the Executive Committee, I suppose.
to compel our members in the west of Scotland district to hang these doors and fix the finished joinery.
It is quite evident that the members of this trade union have themselves a very much better understanding of the situation than have many of the trade union leaders. If I happened to be a trade union leader, the first thing I should want to do would be to keep out those foreign goods that are made under unfair conditions and were taking away the occupation of my own people.
I want now to refer to the worsted industry, which occupies such an important position in Bradford and the West Riding of Yorkshire. First, however, I wish to make it clear that I have no interests at stake, nor could I in any way receive any benefit if Safeguarding were applied to the worsted industry. Although I am not a manufacturer nor concerned in manufacturing, I am in very close touch with the industry of the district, and I know that they have been suffering considerably for a number of years because of enormous foreign imports. To give an idea of the state of the industry, according to the Report of the Registrar-General, in 1921, in Bradford alone, there were employed somewhere about 55,000 textile operatives, including 19,000 in the weaving section alone, and in 1927 there were less than half that number adequately employed in the industry. Various calculations have recently been made to arrive at a true
indication of conditions in the industry, and it has been estimated that there are about 30 to 40 per cent. of the looms which are riot working. I have with me a list of about 20 firms which have quite recently gone out of existence and which at one time had over 3,000 looms in their factories. One refers to looms in this connection because, to anyone with a knowledge of the textile trade it gives an idea of the importance of the industry concerned.
This, unfortunately, still by no means represents a true picture of the very difficult position in which this trade finds itself at the present time. The unfortunate fact is that the imports have increased year by year from 1923 to 1926, and where in the year 1923 we imported 20,984,784 square yards of woollen and worsted goods, in the year 1926 we imported 34,632,268 square yards of similar kinds of cloth, an increase of about 65 per cent. The manufacturers are, and have been, with a few exceptions, far from fully occupied. This has resulted in the fact that, although for many long years the West Riding of Yorkshire has been the great manufacturing centre of the whole world, the English manufacturers, owing to these very difficult times and shortage of employment, have lost to a certain extent what one might describe as the initiative; and I can say from my own experience that initiative in business, the power to move and to act, is just as important to manufacturers as it is to the leader of an army in time of war. They have been faced by the fact that while their mills have only been working part time, the foreign manufacturer, whether in France, Czechoslovakia, Italy, or any of the other countries with whom they are competing, has been fully occupied and in many cases working day and night. This has given the foreigner a very great advantage, because he has been able to base his sale price on full production and not, as the unfortunate English manufacturer has, on part-time production.
With my knowledge of the textile trade, I am convinced that if Safeguarding were applied to it it would quickly regain this initiative; it would be just as beneficial to it as, and on a much larger scale than, it has been to the other industries which have been safe-
guarded. I believe it would certainly help us very materially in regaining the export trade that we have lost to a large extent. In conclusion, there are two things that I would like to urge upon the Government and upon the President of the Board of Trade in particular. In the first place, I would desire him to consider once more the question of the textile trade and to find out whether it is not possible to help it in some way or other. The industry made application for Safeguarding some 18 months or so ago, but, owing to the very difficult conditions laid down in the White Paper to which I have referred, they were unfortunately turned down by the Committee. If there had been the tests which I suggested would be useful, I do not think there is any doubt that the textile industry would have been safeguarded and would by now have been prosperous. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot seriously consider whether it is possible to help it in some way or other, and also whether, if it is not possible to alter the terms which govern the granting of Safeguarding, he will consider the question very seriously, so that when the country does return another Government—and I am certain it will be a Conservative Government—they shall have the necessary power to deal with this question—

Sir H. CROFT: May I make a correction? I spoke just now of quarters, when I meant to say four months.

Mr. HARRIS: We have had two interesting speeches, and I am rather glad that we have had them. We have had an interesting Session, now rapidly drawing to a close, end we are beginning to realise what is the policy of the Tory party. We very often hear it better from the Back Benches than from the Front Bench, and it is obvious now that the Tory programme before the country is the Trade Unions Bill, Clear out the Reds, and Protection, naked and unashamed. We may now take it that in due course the Government, egged on by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), will go to the country so that they can carry out their full programme. They are now handicapped by their pledges. We have had a miniature General Election; we have had three by-elections, and the Tory party's programme to some extent, has
been put before the country. At Bosworth, great appeals were made for the Safeguarding of industry, and one of the best examples was that of socks, cotton socks, but the electors were not having any.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say why the new Member hedged on that subject?

Mr. HARRIS: I know that the new Member is a very strong Free Trader, and I do not think there has been much hedging on that question. My hon. and gallant Friend, if he will allow me so to call him, the Member for Bournemouth, who is a good sportsman and always puts his case clearly and fairly, is worried about the excess of imports over exports and the constant pouring of goods into this country untaxed or not sufficiently taxed. But that has been going on for a great number of years. For 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years our imports have exceeded our exports, and somehow or other we are not bankrupt yet. We managed to weather the War under the old-fashioned Free Trade system, and we managed to carry an immense load of debt, not only our own, but that of a great part of Europe and a great number of our Allies. The hon. and gallant Member is concerned about those debts. How are they paid? He says, very rightly, they are paid by invisible exports. We are proud and are not ashamed of doing the carrying trade of the world. The Union Jack is to be seen in every port in the world. In spite of everything, we are still the largest owners of ships in the world. You have to pay for that somehow. The advantage of being a seafaring people has to be paid for by imports exceeding our exports. That is the only way that the benighted foreigners can pay for the services of carrying their goods and raw materials. Undoubtedly if you put on a high tariff you will keep out a great number of imports, and as soon as you succeed in that, so soon will our mercantile marine suffer and our ships will go in and out of our ports empty, and the great shipping trade which has been our pride and glory in the foundation of the Empire will suffer accordingly.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth is naturally obsessed with the large increase in the first four months of the year. I do not say we
ought not to study these things, and I think it quite right that the President of the Board of Trade should examine them closely to see what articles are increasing and what are decreasing. I have taken the trouble to examine them rather closely, and it may interest the House to know that the principal increase in the importation of manufactured goods has been in oil, fats and resins. Manufactures of this kind have gone up to no less than £14,750,000. These are things very near to raw materials. The other big item is iron and steel imports. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these are very important industries, deserving of attention, but when you examine them quietly, you find the largest items of increases are really in the nature of semi raw materials which undergo a process of manufacture here, such as pig-iron, ingots, steel plates and bars, steel girders required for the building trade and items of that character.
I notice for instance, that in steel rails, a very important industry, imports are down. If you were to analyse that carefully, you would find that if you were to attempt to put a tax on these articles, you might be giving some advantage to certain big and important industries, but, on the other hand, there would he an increase in the cost of the raw material of very important industries like the packing trade and the shipbuilding trade which depend for their very existence on free imports, and being able to buy their raw materials, or semi-raw materials, unhindered by tariffs. If you put on a tax, I am still old-fashioned enough to believe that someone has to pay the tax, and that it is paid ultimately by the consumer. It is a very significant thing that in this industry there was a special inquiry by a Cabinet Committee as to whether they should put it through the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to do so. I assume they were afraid it would seriously handicap some of our most important industries.
Of course, there is an even stronger case than that. I happened to notice in the "Times" a very interesting little note in reference to the town of Don-caster. They wanted some low pressure cables that were important for their elec-
trical industry. They believed in buying in the home market, but owing to the high prices charged by the electrical combine, they decided to place the contract in the Netherlands. If we had had our safeguarding machinery, the municipality would have been in the hands of the trust, and would not have been able to break it by going abroad because of the duty of 20 per cent, or 30 per cent. That is not an isolated instance. There have been three or four other cases, not only of municipalities but of great corporations like the Southern Railway which found it necessary, owing to an attempt to form combines and rings, to keep up prices, to go abroad for their essential articles, and owing to the fact that the safeguarding machinery had not been applied they were able to do it untrammelled by tariffs, and now they are on the highroad to breaking those trusts.
Hon. Members opposite are very pleased with the success of Safeguarding. I am quite prepared to give them a present of the fact that if you single out one or two industries for special favours, and protect their produce, they will be able to prosper at the expense of the general community. To give an example, take the case of gas mantles. I remember the controversy not so very long ago about that. They asked for protection. There was a long inquiry, and after it they got a protection of 6s. per gross. We are now reaping the advantage. The wholesale price before the safeguarding duty was put on was 26s. per gross, and the present English price of English gas mantles is 37s. 6d. per gross. That is very nice for gas mantle manufacturers, but they still cannot compete with the foreigner, in spite of the duty. They say that in spite of it the Germans can still undercut. So what have they done? They have made an arrangement with the Germans and are paying them 4s. per gross in order to keep out their stuff, and meanwhile the consumer pays. The retail price of gas mantles before the safeguarding machinery operated was 4½d., and it has now gone up to 6d. or 6¼d. You may say that does not matter, and it may not matter to the well-to-do, because every person who can afford it has electricity, but in the working-class districts they have to put up with gas, and mantles are very expensive articles,
especially when you have a large family in a two-roomed tenement, and where gas mantles have a habit of getting broken and have constantly to be replaced. Here you have a practical example of what will happen when the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth brings his machinery of Safeguarding to its logical conclusion. You will have arrangements of this kind between trusts and combines, and the public will suffer, and a very few people will gain as against the community as a whole.
I want to refer to the very interesting speech made by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden). He was naturally anxious to look after the interests of his own particular district Small blame to him, but I would remind him that, if we really had a general tariff, where we used to be Members for districts, we should become Members for industries and trades, and each one would have to fight on his own little cabbage-patch to get protection for his industry. I would remind him there was an inquiry into the state of the woollen industry. It was a very long inquiry presided aver by one of those impartial committees which are the boast and pride of the President of the Board of Trade. They came to the conclusion that the woollen and worsted trade was in a very healthy position, and did not want protection. I am not surprised, because while we import, taking an average year, some £15,000,000 worth of woollen and worsteds, we export something like £51,000,000. Not only that, hut our imports are c.i.f., while, of course, our exports are free on board without the cost of freight and insurance being added; so our export trade is on a very much larger scale than our import trade.
I know the position in Yorkshire, but have we not all experienced the vagaries of trade—the fact that ladies will wear short skirts, and the fact that women economise in the material they use? Are they not spending more on stockings, and less on dress materials? Are they not spending more on knitted goods instead of on woven goods? Is not that the cause of the depression in Yorkshire much more than the fact of a certain amount of imports coming into this country? They always come in. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes, they have
always done so; they did so before the War. Before the War, Germany was a large competitor. Germany is now getting back some of her industry, and will be a competitor again. I think the efforts of the hon. Member would be far better devoted looking for other remedies, It is generally admitted in Yorkshire that the time has come for a general reorganisation and for the co-ordination of mills; for more specialisation and for a reorganisation of the u hole system and of the general method of production.

Mr. RAMSDEN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think he will find that that is not a generally accepted fact.

Mr. HARRIS: It is the opinion that in industry what is needed is standardisation, mass production and specialisation. The industry in Yorkshire is a fine old industry, dating back many years, and it is time that it was reorganised to meet new conditions. In America there is the great factor of mass production, and I am inclined to think that the remedy lies there. I do not want to detain the House, but I do want the President of the Board of Trade to say a few words on one subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) referred to the Conference at Geneva. It was a very interesting Conference. There were representatives from all parts of the world, and I understand there was general agreement that the time had come for the lowering of economic values. Our representatives, whether they were official or not, supported that view, and it received general acceptance. I believe the only country that was a little doubtful about accepting the resolution was France. Be that as it may, it was accepted. I believe it is becoming largely accepted that economic barriers are bad for trade, for civilisation and for peace; they are also bad for the general improvement of mankind. I think it is unfortunate that, at a time when these views are gaining ground, the leader of the nations of the world should go in for the policy of experiments in tariff and of singling out three or four industries for special treatment. I think it is unfortunate, and it will not help the general trend towards a general freer exchange of goods. I admit there are one or two unfortunate examples to discourage us.
and one of the worst offenders is our own Dominion, Australia, which is more and more going in for high tariff wails. I understand that they are actually talking about putting 200 per cent. on woollens. Would not my hon. Friend from Yorkshire do better to go out to Australia and try to persuade Mr. Bruce to be more reasonable, and that a lower tariff would help Yorkshire?

Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the hon. Member aware that Australia, with all the Dominions, happen to be the very best markets we have for woollen goods?

Mr. HARRIS: Yes; and that is why I am sorry to see that in Australia they are raising their tariff walls. The other offender is France. But I believe these high tariffs are going to defeat their purpose. They are raising the cost of living in France. There is a great: outcry at the present moment. They are also raising the cost of living in Australia. The agricultural population of Australia, almost to a man, are free traders and free importers, because they have very staple industries and they are being handicapped by the high cost of manufactured goods for use on the farm and for their personal use. The same thing is happening in France. It has been common knowledge that there have been Communist victories in one or two important by-elections in France and I am informed that that is due to the high cost of living and to the high prices which have to be paid for everything in France. That is bound to lead sooner or later to a change in the attitude of the French people towards these high tariffs. Therefore I think this Economic Conference could do far more to help trade than by going in for all these little silly attempts at tariffs. If you are going to do it, do it fairly all round; be logical, but do not single out one or two favoured industries. If you are going to get a trade revival in this country, I think a far better remedy would be to obtain peace in industry, either by co-operation or other methods, than by trying to increase the cost of living.

Mr. MAXTON: Repeal the Trade Disputes Bill!

Mr. HARRIS: The Trade Unions Bill will not help peace in industry; it will only lead to bad blood between employers and employés. I hope we shall
have some statement from the President of the Board of Trade and that he will tell us what the attitude of the Government is towards any such conference at Geneva. If the Government are going in for tariffs, let it be made clear to the country, and if we can know what their policy is, then the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth will not have been wasted.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The hon. Member who has just sat down has asked me to state what the policy of the Government is. It is the policy on which the Government went to the country at the last election, and which they are at present carrying out. It would be ridiculous to suggest that because of the very limited step which we have taken within the strict limits of our pledges, we are neglecting to give the world a lead in a general reduction of tariffs. If there is any country in the world that has set an example which might have been followed during past years in the matter of Free Trade it is this country. I am quite certain, however, that by reasonable measures in certain exceptional cases to safeguard certain industries in cases of proved necessity, we shall certainly not deter other people from coming to reasonable arrangements which would lead to the diminutions of tariffs or to the breaking down of tariffs.
4.0 p.m.
Indeed, the well known economist, Mr. Layton, said at the conference at which he was presiding that if other countries did not bring their tariffs down they would probably see opinion generally throughout the whole of the United Kingdom change, so that if other countries would not bring their tariffs down this country would think about retaliating. That was a very remarkable statement, coming from one of the strongest Free Trade economists in this country. I do not think I should be reproved for having invited to Geneva representatives who are Free Trade in their sympathies. If the idea is to persuade the world to adopt a policy of Free Trade, I am not sure that they were not more persuasive advocates than my hon. and gallant Friend. I sincerely hope that other countries which have raised their tariffs generally far beyond those of other countries will reduce them. What is more
important even than that is the restriction of imports, and I hope the policy of prohibitions and restrictions will not. be unreasonably followed in other countries.
The hon. Member for South-West, Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) rebuked the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) because he ventured to raise the case of a particular industry which is of great importance in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I have never been able to see why it is more immoral to advance the cause of one great industry than to advance the cause of the merchant, and if it is proper for the hon. Gentleman to put forward the point of view of the merchants, it is not out of place to put forward the point of view of the manufacturers engaged in this particular trade. I am not going over the whole of the long controversy as to whether the woollen and the worsted trade ought: to have a duty to protect it at the present time. Hon. Members are acquainted with the Report which has been issued on this subject. One of the great difficulties in forming a correct opinion in regard to the state of this particular industry is that it is one which includes several branches, some of which may be in a prosperous condition when others are depressed. I think it was stated that in regard to this industry unemployment had rather gone down.

Mr. RAMSDEN: I referred to the worsted industry which was the question before the Committee, and in that trade, I am afraid, employment is by no means good.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know that on this question come people support one view and others support the other view. One thing which, to my mind, seems more hopeful is a suggestion which has come from both the employers and a leader of the union that they should come tog-ether within the industry, and sec what is the real position of each section of the trade in order to find out whether some agreement cannot be arrived at between them in regard to the facts. Obviously, that is a very excellent thing for the industry to do, and that would carry a good deal of weight. I trust that in the case of the worsted trade a suggestion like that, coming from a distinguished leader of
labour in that industry, will be promptly considered.

Mr. RAMSDEN: If this inquiry takes place and new facts are disclosed, will the right hon. Gentleman set up another Committee to consider safeguarding for the worsted industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If new facts emerge which were not present to the mind of the former Committee, quite clearly a new case is made out which ought to be heard. The situation might so change as to make it desirable for a duty to be imposed. Certainly it would be absurd to say that if two years ago imports were not excessive and there was no unemployment and then circumstances changed and the industry was subject to a flood of imports, because a case had not been made out two years ago a case could not be made out at present. There would be a new position which would deserve fresh consideration.
But that was a reference to one particular industry. As regards the broad policy of the Government I have nothing to add or subtract from what has been said on many occasions. My hon. and gallant Friend would be the last to expect me in this Debate to make an announcement of any departure of policy. We gave our pledges and by them we abide on the positive as well as the negative side. It is not enough for hon. Members who criticise to rely only on the negative side of what we are not to do. We gave positive pledges of what we would do, and we propose to implement them up to the full. [Interruption.] We are not going to change our pledges. That would be improper and unwise. I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing to its notice once again the position of the balance of trade. It is a subject that cannot be dismissed as lightly as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green was inclined to dismiss it, and I was entirely unable to follow his argument that if the apparent balance of trade became more favourable to us we should lose a great deal of our world shipping trade. If it is true, or in the least relation to the truth, would he explain why it is that before the War, when we had a favourable balance of trade of something like—was it £200,000,000? a year, we had a larger share of the carrying
trade of the world than we have now? It is fantastic in face of that to argue that if we redress the adverse balance that confronts us, which it behoves all of us to do our best to redress, we are going to suffer in our carrying trade. That is plain nonsense. My hon. and gallant Friend painted the picture a little too black in one or two respects, because he quoted pound for pound in successive years without allowing fully for the movement of prices. For example, he said our imports of raw material had fallen very gravely as compared with 1925, but the price of cotton was relatively high in that year and it is extraordinarily low to-day, and if he takes into account the fall in prices I do not think he will find the position is very different from what it was in 1925.

Sir H. CROFT: The same must apply also to the very alarming decrease in the export of manufactures.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, it does apply to them but it applies in the opposite way, because w hat my hon. and gallant Friend wants is more imports of raw material, which is quite right, and he says we have got terrible losses. As a matter of fact, we have not got a loss in volume since prices have fallen. It is a converse argument which applies when you come to deal with exports, because the value of textile piece goods exported has fallen, and, therefore, the lower money value of textile exports to-day as compared with 1925 does not necessarily mean a lower exportation. Even making allowances for that, the figures of the trade balance are serious. I have taken what I think is, perhaps, the fairest estimate that can be, made, that is taking 1913 as the basic year and trying, as far as it is possible to do so, to bring all the figures down to a common standard of value. I have taken the comparative exports and imports of manufactured articles in this country. The figures are extremely interesting. Taking the figure of net imports of manufactures for 1913 as 100, the figure for 1924 was 105.4; 1925, 117.9; 1926, 129.2, and in the first quarter of 1927, 143.3. That last figure is not one that I would myself take as a standard of comparison, because it includes a very large importation, particularly of iron and steel, the contracts for which were placed during the coal strike. Take the exports
of manufactures—in 1913, 100; 1924, 75˙3 1925, 76.8; 1926, 71˙7, and 1927, the first, quarter, 74˙2. That discloses a position with which I do not think even the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) can be wholly satisfied, and, without entering upon any fiscal controversy, I believe that anyone who looks at the financial position of this country, who looks at the balance of trade, who realises that for the development of overseas trade—even the keenest Free Traders in the world, and they are people who are as alive to the importance of the development of our export market as we are—will agree with the most recalcitrant Protectionist that you must have money to develop your export market, and in the long run you can only have that money available if you have a large available trade balance. When you face an apparent adverse balance of the magnitude I have indicated, and when as it takes as it took last year, the whole of our invisible exports to redress that balance, nobody can be content with that as the constant trade position. That all points to the importance—and this is a matter which must appeal to all of us, whatever may be our fiscal views—of buying within our own country whatever we can, in order to redress the adverse balance of our imports. That is an action in which everybody can play a part, whether as a private individual or as a member of local authorities. There is that plain obligation upon us to do all we can in that way, and there is also the obligation, which is hardly less apparent, despite all that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has said, to buy within the Empire, in preference to buying in foreign countries which take less from us. The Empire to-day, if we exclude the Irish Free State, takes 44 per cent. of whatever this country has to export.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not a fact that the interest upon the accumulated investments in foreign countries is much greater than the amount of investments year by year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the interest on our accumulated investments abroad is a very large part of what we call our invisible exports.
Last year, it took the whole of the invisible exports, shipping earnings, insurance overseas, and the whole of the interest on the overseas investment that we got—and we have enormous investments Overseas—

Mr. STEPHEN: Who has?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Great Britain. The national wealth of Great Britain.

Mr. MAXTON: Has it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Those investments were made because in the past years we had favourable and not adverse trade balances from which to invest money there. It behoves us to use all our efforts to develop the markets across the seas in which we have interests. There is one market which I may mention in view of the fact that a new state of relationship has opened with that great country, the Argentine Republic, a country with which we have enormous trade relations, a country with enormous resources, from which we buy very greatly, and a country which, in spite of foolish articles written by some publicists who ought to know better has, on its own initiative, started out there the comforting slogan, "Buy from those who buy from you." By that they mean, "Buy from Britain."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. You, Sir, have not been in the Chair during the whole course of the Debate, and I want to mention what has taken place in this Debate. This is a matter in which many Members on this side are keenly interested, and on which some of us have very strong views. There have been three spokesmen from the party opposite and one from below the Gangway on this side of the House and not one from this bench. I make my protest.

MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. WHITELEY: We have listened to a very interesting Debate on the question whether a policy of Free Trade or a policy of Protection and safeguarding of industries would be the most beneficial to this country. I and my friends wish to draw attention a particular industry in which we are concerned, namely, the mining industry. I was interested to hear from the hon. and gallant Member
for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) the statement that the Government have discovered a remedy for unemployment. If the Government have discovered a remedy for unemployment, we who have been connected with the mining industry all our lives will be exceedingly delighted if they will give to the mining industry some of the magic potion of the remedy which they have found, so that e may be pot upon a better basis than we are at the present time. Just about a year ago we were discussing in this House the Mining Industry Bill, which in Part IV. deals with the recruitment of men into the mines. Although the Third Reading Debate was a very short one, the Secretary for Mines told us that Part IV. limits the recruitment for the next three years, and allows those who are dispossessed, under the operations which may take place as a result of this Measure, to be secured in their employment in the mining industry. It is a thing for which hon. Gentlemen opposite have frequently asked, and it is not for them to jeer at it. It is correct to say that Section 18 of the Mining Industries Act. 1926, lays down some kind of basis which gives the Minister of Labour the opportunity of doing something that will be really beneficial to the mining industry, but up to the present we have seen no evidence that this particular Section of the Act is being put into operation. Section 18 says:
The Minister of Labour may, after consultation with associations representing respectively employers and persons employed in the coal mining industry, make regulation for the purpose of securing that in the recruitment of persons over the age of eighteen years for employment to which this Section applies preference is given, while this Section is in force, to persons who were employed in such employment during the period of seven days ending the thirtieth day of April, 1926.
To us this extremely important, and we are anxious to know from the Secretary for Mines. whether there has been any of these consultations to which the Section refers. We want to know whether there has been consultation with the coal-owners and the Miners' Federation; whether the Minister of Labour has secured any of the information which this Section says he has power to secure with regard to the position of the coalmining industry and the employment in the mines. Everybody knows that after the last stoppage there are more un-
employed miners to-day than ever there has been. Many collieries have closed down, and others have not been able to get into full working order yet. It is true that in certain parts of the country there are collieries which are beginning to develop, and we hope that in the future there will be room in these collieries for many of the unemployed miners of the moment.
What we desire to know is whether the Minister of Labour, since the passing of the Act last year, has simply allowed things to drift, or whether he has inquired of the mineowners how many men they employed prior to the stoppage of 1926, and how many men they are employing now after the stoppage has ended. Has he inquired from them how many men they would be able to employ in the future? We want to know whether he has made arty inquiries of this kind, whether he has ascertained what collieries are devolping and what are the pro spects for the future, especially with regard to the number of men who may reasonably expect to find work in four weeks' time, in two months' time, or six months' time. We should also like to know whether he has any idea of using some of the £3,000.000 that was set aside for the transference of miners from one part of the country to another, and whether he has prepared any scheme to facilitate this transference. This is a problem winch does not affect only one part of the country; it affects every part of the country more or less. Will he say whether he has in his mind any idea of using some of this money for transferring large groups of miners from one area to another from aears where collieries have been closed down to areas where there is a prospect of employment owing to mining development? I mean the transfer of 100 or 200 families in such a way.
While, of course, the Minister of Labour and the Secretary for Mines would not accept any responsibility for the condition and the misery of our people owing to their having been evicted from their homes and put on the streets as a result of the great depression in the industry, we believe that the Government, under this particular Act, could put into operation Regulations that would relieve the difficulty to a, very large extent. We have in our minds the cases of scores of
men who have done valuable service for colliery companies for over 40 years, men who started as lads at 12 years of age and have worked from 30 to 40 years for one colliery company, and now, because there does not happen to be any vacancy at that mine for such men, they are being evicted from their homes and turned adrift. We think that under the Act the Minister of Labour and the Secretary for Mines ought to be able to make some arrangement with the coal-owners whereby such harsh treatment would not be allowed, and that these men could be protected in some way until vacancies can be secured for them in some other part of the country. The Section of the Act I have in mind refers to men "who were employed in mining before 30th April, 1926." These Acts are passed from time to time, and there may be very little protection to be secured from them, but we are entitled to say that that protection, however small, ought to be provided.
Those are some of the questions that I put to the Minister. Particularly do I want him to keep in mind the fact that under the Act there are powers which can he secured as a result of interviews between the owners and the miners, and that regulations can be put into operation to prevent the tremendous amount of unnecessary friction that exists in the industry to-day. The Minister of Labour and the Secretary for Mines ought to see that men who have rendered valuable service to particular coalowners are not treated with the contempt that is meted out to them to-day, but rather that they have the protection of the Government. If these men were in any other walk of life they would be given some kind of pension, some kind of recognition of their long service. Although there may be excuses made because certain things have not happened, yet I still believe that the Minister of Labour and the Secretary for Mines could make such arrangements under the Act as would minimise to a large extent much of the difficulty and distress and unnecessary suffering that exist amongst the mining population to-day.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry that it has not been found possible to take this Debate in a full House, because the mining industry is in a terrible position. As
the afternoon is now far advanced and as my colleague who has just spoken has made a very complete statement in regard to the matter, I do not propose to add anything to that statement

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): It is not surprising that two hon. Members who represent a great exporting county should have desired to raise this matter and I agree with the last speaker that it would have been better, had it been possible, to take this discussion earlier in the day, when we might have gone into the question in greater detail than is now possible. The hon. Member who initiated the discussion asked several questions, to which I can give a reply which I think he will regard as not altogether unsatisfactory. He referred to the mining industry in Durham as a whole and the picture which he drew was a very sombre one. I do not say that he exaggerated the position. I think it is unfortunately true that he and his friends who represent Durham, together with those who represent. other great exporting districts like South Wales, feel to the greatest extent the repercussions of the events of last year. The facts are sufficiently obvious. During the disturbance of last year our competitors in other countries used every possible mean; of increasing their output and capturing the markets formerly held by us, and they also took the precaution of entering into long-term contracts in carder to ensure that those advantages should remain with them as long as possible. A very interesting report was made by several miners' agents and one working miner, who examined the position abroad. I think one of the miners' agents was the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley) and in this report they make this significant statement:
During the last, half of last year the production in the Ruhr and in German and Polish Upper Silesia was easily raised during the British stoppage, to the rate of 172,000,000 tons a year as compared with 157,000,000 tons in 1913. In France production was raised in the same period to the rate of 50,000,000 tons a year as compared with 40,000,000 tons a year in 1913.
I only refer to that to show that one of the consequences of the disturbance of last year is to be found in the fact that much of our export trade was for the time being lost, although we hope we
are now in the slow process of recovering some of it. The question which is addressed to me here to-day is what are the Government doing under Section 18 of the Act of last year. The hon. Member who raised the matter represented the purport of the Section fairly and accurately. The object of the Section is to secure that mining employment shall be confined to miners. I can tell the hon. Member how the position stands. A scheme has been drafted by the Ministry of Labour, and I will tell him the main purport of it without going into detail. This is the relevant Clause.
No colliery giving the undertaking comprised in this scheme will engage any person over the age of 18 years for employment in or about a coal mine in the getting, handling, hauling, preparation and despatch of coal (being employment such as to make the person an employed person within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Acts) unless that person was during the period of seven clays ending on 30th April, 1926, or when last before that date in regular employment, employed in such employment.
The restriction on engagement set out in paragraph I shall not apply in any case where the constituent member has notified particulars of the vacancy to the nearest Employment Exchange and 14 days have elapsed after such notification has been received without submission by the Exchange of a person suitable for filling the vacancy and qualified in accordance with paragraph I or the Exchange has given notice to the constituent member before the expiration of the 14 days that no such person can be submitted.
The effect of this undertaking will be, first, that vacancies in the coalmining industry other than those for boys are reserved for persons already in that industry; secondly, provided that condition is fulfilled, the colliery may obtain colliery workers from any area; thirdly, if it cannot obtain them in the ordinary way it must give the Employment Exchanges 14 days in which to find and submit suitable labour and fourthly, the Exchanges will co-operate with the trade unions in the ordinary way. About three weeks ago a deputation from the Miners' Federation came to me and we went into this matter. Questions were asked as to the precise scope of the agreement. The Miners' Federation wanted to know exactly who came under it; they wanted to be quite certain of the meaning of paragraph 1, which I have just read. We
are drawing up a schedule showing the particular occupations to which tile agree-men shall apply.

Mr. WHITELEY: In the arrangement you are going to bring into operation, there is nothing to provide that men who were employed in the mining industry on 30th April, 1926, shall Have that protection. What I want to get at is this. If 50 or 60 men who were miners on the 30th April and have been miners all their lives were victimised at a colliery, are they going to get protection under this scheme?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure that I properly appreciate the precise point the hon. Member has in his mind. What this agreement seeks to do, and I think does do, is to carry out the provisions of Section 18, which ensures that new men shall not enter into the mining industry until an opportunity has been given for men who are already miners to be employed; that is, to ensure that the industry shall be kept to miners. That carries out to the full the purpose of Section 18. The hon. Member may say, "Who is giving this undertaking? The Mining Association does not necessarily represent all the collieries in the country. How are you going to make sure that all are bound by the undertaking?" We are quite determined, and we consider It essential, that the undertaking shall be given by all collieries without exception, whether they belong to the Association or whether they do not, and we have every reason to believe there will be no difficulty on that score and that the undertaking will be given by them all. After this deputation, which I received on 12th May, the Federation wrote to me on 17th May raising certain points of detail. The Ministry replied on 23rd May, and at the moment we are awaiting a reply to that letter. We have every reason to hope that we shall be able to complete those arrangements, and we think they will carry out both in the letter and spirit the terms of the Act passed last year. The hon. Member has channels of his own through which to find out how the matter is proceeding, but I shall be very happy to communicate with him as soon as he likes after we meet again in order that he may be kept informed and know what is the position.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: The questions brought forward by the two hon. Friends the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) apply equally to other parts of the British coalfield. The difficulties of the mining industry are by no means confined to the county of Durham. The Parliamentary Secretary said the stoppage of last year was to a considerable extent responsible for the condition in which the industry finds itself to-day. I am not going to deny that the stoppage last year had some effect upon the industry, but I think he is in error in attributing to the stoppage of last year all the difficulties with which the mining industry finds itself face to face to-day. I believe that we would have been faced with some of the same difficulties, in the course of time, even if there had been no stoppage. The industry to-day is undoubtedly facing competitors that it has never had to face in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the development of Holland, Germany, and France, but they form only part of the additional competitors that the industry is facing. We are having in all the coal producing countries of the world a development going on that gives us more competition for our export trade than was formerly the case, and in addition there are other competitors, such as oil, electricity manufactured by water power, and other sources of motive power, with the result that the mining industry to-day is in a worse position than any of us who have followed the industry for the whole of our lives has ever found before. The mining population to-day is facing destitution such as we have seldom seen in the course of our lifetime in these mining areas, and I would like to put it to the Secretary for Mines and the representative of the Ministry of Labour that, in addition to putting into operation that Section in the Mining Industry Act of last year which provided for keeping employment in mines for miners, the Government should go very much further if the industry is to be put upon a footing that will enable it to provide work for a larger number of people.
When the Coal Mining Commission was taking evidence, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain put forward a scheme which they thought was the one that should be applied to the mining industry and that was likely to redeem the industry. The Government, on the other hand, said: "No, that would have no effect; that is the wrong way of going about the matter." In particular, the Government suggested that there should be a lengthening of hours and even a reduction in wages. Well, we have had our reduction in wages. There is not a district in the British coalfield to-day that is not now down on what is known as the minimum wage. We have also had our increase in hours. There is a full hour put on the working day of every mine worker in the country, or of nearly every mine worker. There may be some districts where there is less than an hour, but, speaking generally, there has been a full hour put on the working day for every mine worker in the country, and at the end of the policy advocated by the Government in conjunction with the coal-owners of the country, the industry finds itself in a more parlous condition than before that policy was put into operation. In these circumstances, I think we, on these benches, and particularly those of us representing mining districts, are entitled to ask what the Government are prepared to do in addition to putting into operation Section 18 of the Mining Industry Act.
Might I say in a word to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour that one of the big difficulties we in the mining districts are facing today is one for which his Department are responsible. We find large numbers of our men, who have not been able to find employment for months past, are being cut off from unemployment insurance benefit on the ground that they are not making every reasonable effort to obtain employment, and that in an industry where less, instead of more, men are being employed every day. Under that particular Clause hundreds of our men are being cut off. We would like to know, before the House rises, what the Government are prepared to do in order to help the mining population of this country, because the position in the mining popula-
tion is desperate and requires the close and sympathetic attention of the Government. Are the Government prepared to go further than Clause 18 of the Mining industry Act, and how much further are they prepared to do in order to help the mining industry out of its difficulties?
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes before Five o'Clock until Monday, 13th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.